Xixax Film Forum

From today's indieWIRE:


Michael Moore Takes Aim at George W. Bush for Next Doc

by Christopher Henderson

Stagehands may get the chance to boo Michael Moore a second time at Oscar 2005. Moore has found a surprising production company, Mel Gibson's Icon Productions to back his next film "Fahrenheit 911." The new documentary will be no less controversial than the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine."

"The primary thrust of the film is what happened to the country since Sept. 11 and how the Bush administration used this tragic event to push its agenda," commented Moore in an interview with Variety. "It certainly does deal with the Bush and bin Laden ties. It asks a number of questions that I don't have the answers to yet, but which I intend to find out."

The potential furor around the new film and the tumult surrounding Moore's Oscar night speech did nothing to deter bidders for "Fahrenheit 911." Variety called the sale, which ended with Icon's bid of more than $10 million up front and potential back end, a "fevered auction." Gibson, a staunch Republican, put politics aside, apparently swayed more by "Bowling for Columbine's" $40 million worldwide gross than its left-leaning bent.

Moore began researching "Fahrenheit 911" more than a year ago and intends to complete it in time for submission to Cannes 2004 and a theatrical release prior to the presidential election next November.

The Bush - bin Laden ties that Moore will explore include George Bush Sr.'s business dealings with Mohammed bin Laden, the Saudi construction magnate who left $300 million to his son, Osama and the connection between the Bush Sr. led CIA and the forces in Afghanistan that fought the Soviet Union in the late 70s and early 80s.

In his Variety interview, Moore attributed the "Fahrenheit" deal and increased sales of his book "Stupid White Men" since his Oscar speech to public support for his politics. "It's because the majority of Americans agree with me, see the economy in the toilet, and didn't vote for George W. People are now realizing that you can question your government while still caring about the soldiers."

~rougerum

Quote from: MacGuffinDamn, this hasn't happened before. The Gold Trumpet beat me to it. Shit.

cbrad, beat you both, yo:
http://xixax.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=894&start=45

I don't see Cbr saying anything about this in that link though. I just could be blind, but I don't see it.

~rougerum

Mac must've changed it

or i'm just not redirect material, damn admins

fixed now

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI don't see Cbr saying anything about this in that link though. I just could be blind, but I don't see it.

"check yo nuts if dey still works"
brother mogwai[/color]

I would love to see the majority of Americans flood in to see "Fahrenheit 911" and then watch Bush lose the election. Boy would I ever love that.

Quote from: mogwai

Quote from: MacGuffinDamn, this hasn't happened before. The Gold Trumpet beat me to it. Shit.

cbrad, beat you both, yo:
http://xixax.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=894&start=45

:yabbse-thumbup:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.posterplanet.net%2Fpictures%2Fimages%2FLd1b6.gif&hash=30175cb7936b4bc9df3606b07fec9d704eda6411)

im da king of the world!


I will never write a post this gay again.

Quote from: CinephileI would love to see the majority of Americans flood in to see "Fahrenheit 911" and then watch Bush lose the election. Boy would I ever love that.

Why?




Fahrenheit 911 is going to be brutal

Here is an interesting article I was linked to

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Quote from: Duck Sauce
Why?

Fahrenheit 911 is going to be brutal

Ah, correction, DS... the brutal truth.

uhh, why r macs, p, mogwai, and jb's posts all mixed up?

Quote from: CinephileAh, correction, DS... the brutal truth.

Quote from: tremoloslothhttp://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

In case you haven't notice, truth holds no value with Moore.

Quote from: cbrad4duhh, why r macs, p, mogwai, and jb's posts all mixed up?

uh, i don't know what you're talking about...

Quote from: MacGuffin

Quote from: MacGuffinDamn, this hasn't happened before. The Gold Trumpet beat me to it. Shit.

cbrad, beat you both, yo:
http://xixax.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=894&start=45

Quote from: mogwaiWhat the hell is happening? I'm beaten by a 16 year old wanker who listens to Mogwai!!

maybe i'm going crazy... :?:


I know Mac wrote this-

Quote from: mogwai

Quote from: mogwaiMac must've changed it

or i'm just not redirect material, damn admins

fixed now

Happy now, Mogwai? *grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr*

and p did this one-

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI don't see Cbr saying anything about this in that link though. I just could be blind, but I don't see it.

"check yo nuts if dey still works"
brother mogwai[/color]

If Moore was lying by any means, I'm certain he would receive HUGE criticism from his book distributors and his book wouldn't be sitting #1 on the Bestseller's List for over a year.
In addition to that, I highly doubt his "Bowling for Columbine" would've been such a success if he lied about the main facts. The only questionable facts Moore made was the two boys possibly didn't go bowling before shooting people (MM still says they did, with over 5 eyewitnesses) and that he didn't get the gun from the bank (MM claims he has the raw footage to prove they sold him the gun there, and also goes on to say he could've had a choice between a gun, a grandfather clock, and something else but I can't remember.. all they had at the bank were guns).
Again I say that Moore, being a left-winger, is not making stuff up for attention. If anyone believes this is the case than you're either to absorbed in Bush's lies or you're too much of a cynic to think SOMEBODY out there knows whats really going on.
Anybody out there who thinks the U.S. is bombing the shit out of Iraq SOLELY to liberate the Iraqi people is more naive/ignorant than one could ever imagine.

Quote from: CinephileAgain I say that Moore, being a left-winger, is not making stuff up for attention. If anyone believes this is the case than you're either to absorbed in Bush's lies or you're too much of a cynic to think SOMEBODY out there knows whats really going on.

Not only does he make it up (as recounted time and time again) he profits off of it. The man profits off of bending the truth and fabricating lies. That nearly makes him a politician--the thing he supposedly so despertly despises. That's my main beef with Moore. It's okay to have opinions, but to constantly try and create trouble and dissent to line your own pockets... that's low.

Moore creates his own agenda, then makes the story end on that agenda, whether or not the facts support it. Don't tell others they need to open their eyes and stop being naive when you refuse to do so yourself.

Can you give ANY supporting evidence that he bends the truth and fabricates lies?

Quote from: Raikus

Quote from: CinephileAh, correction, DS... the brutal truth.

Quote from: tremoloslothhttp://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

In case you haven't notice, truth holds no value with Moore.

Quote from: RaikusNot only does he make it up (as recounted time and time again) he profits off of it. The man profits off of bending the truth and fabricating lies.

does anybody have a link to someplace where all the "lies" in bowling are listed?

*slaps head*

Quote from: Raikus

Quote from: Raikus

Quote from: CinephileAh, correction, DS... the brutal truth.

Quote from: tremoloslothhttp://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

In case you haven't notice, truth holds no value with Moore.

Quote from: cbrad4dand p did this one

...or did he?

Quote from: Raikus*slaps head*

ouch!

im not taking sides here, but heres what josh becker said on his website when someone made similar claims of "lies" in moores "roger & me"

"All movies are lies, particularly documentaries. There's no such thing as a completely true documentary, since the filmmaker is deciding what to use and what not to use. It's always going to be slanted some way due to the process."

There's too many stupid points that this amateur tries to make. I'm just going to be brief because it would be a waste of my time to critique the ENTIRE thing on here. First, he quotes an internet film critic who was talking about a less successful MM film from 5-6 years ago. Just a tad bit irrelevent, since both concepts are entirely different. Lemme briefly go over his points.
1. Moore defends his side and Hardy simply denies it and says, "you got caught" like a child who thinks he's right. Observe what Moore says and how Hardy defends his side. He really IS an amateur at this.
2. Moore chops up Heston's quotes and Hardy tries to explain the real transcript. What he doesn't seem to clue in on is that Heston's speech is defending why he's there! "we have the same right as all other citizens to be here" It's not false that they didn't want the NRA there, otherwise he wouldn't make his speech based on that.
3. Hardy makes a couple poor points about Moore changing a few dates, but completely omits all the main, crucial points about the cartoon segment. Hardy's defense here is a joke.
4. Case in point regardless: a small boy still brought a gun to school and shot a girl. Bully or not - Moore made it clear a little boy shot the girl. He wasn't documenting WHY he shot her. He's saying nobody knew why because that was the case.
5. All Moore did was put "aid". Hardy tries to say that Moore implies Afghanistan blew up the towers as a result of the aid. Obviously not the case.. and he has no reviews from people that were led to believe that was the case. I for one thought of bin Laden being trained by the CIA, which Hardy unfortunately ignored.
6. Bottom line: Hardy has nothing to support himself. however you look at it, the US dominates the numbers.
7. That's Moore's take on it, and even Hardy then says "This is pretty mild compared to the rest of Bowling, granted."
8. I dunno what point Hardy was trying to make with the racism but anybody watching the entire sequence on the Cops issue knows he didn't fabricate fuck all. Just listen to his interview with the guy who created the show.
9. Hardy has no defense here since he admits they had a good point with Fear.
10. Hardy messed up royally here. The Amateur says "Guns (supposedly the point of the film)". Where did he learn film criticism? Anywhere? The point of the film was not 'guns'. Thats pathetic. He didn't go anywhere with this point.

Anyway thats all I have to say to debate with this only source that Moore is a lie. and profits off all his stuff.. even though all the money he made on the book tours went to each respective city's charity/foundation.
Thats all.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pebblecottage.com%2Fthumbnails%2Ft_b1627.jpg&hash=113c288a295c0522d6e34b7aedea332f42479f6f)

There's plenty of more sources, but somehow I don't think it will make any difference to you.

And about the all proceeds going to charity, you need to double check your facts there. Because somehow he has enough money to afford cushy living in Upper Manhattan and cares about money enough to cancel his shows if he thinks he's not getting enough.

But enough. There's really no point to continue.

Hey I'm not saying the man doesn't make any money. He's made cheap docs and had great box office success. I didn't say he gave THAT away. Lord knows he pockets so much of that. I fully support the quote cecil pointed out: "All movies are lies, particularly documentaries. There's no such thing as a completely true documentary, since the filmmaker is deciding what to use and what not to use. It's always going to be slanted some way due to the process."
and in this case, its slanted more to the left, which is a refreshing change, in my view. Simply put, I like seeing somebody else with a different view for a change than the U.S. government.

Quote from: Raikus(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pebblecottage.com%2Fthumbnails%2Ft_b1627.jpg&hash=113c288a295c0522d6e34b7aedea332f42479f6f)

Yes, I agree, that IS what you should change your AV to.

taken from indieclub.com, posted by a guy named JerryAZ:

"After all the "discussion" about Michael Moore's B4C "Documentary" Oscar win, and whether it should be considered a documentary at all...

I'm wondering if it isn't time for some better guidlines/rules regarding documentary filmmaking. Certainly, "reality" TV has blurred the line between telling the truth and twisting the truth for the sake of entertainment. Along this line, Lar von Trier, the Dogme95 filmmaker, has put together a similar set of 9 rules for documentary filmmaking. There's an interesting article in the Winter 2003 issue of Filmmaker Magazine that lists the rules, "The Dogu Code of Conduct" and talks about films being made using the rules. Apparently, the Scandinavians and British are quite bullish on making "dogumentary" films.

The rules are clearly designed to eliminate/minimize manipulation, direction and typical "tricks" that can deceive the viewer. Personally, I think it would be great to make a doc this way. Certainly, had MM followed such rules, B4C would have been a much different movie. Sorry I don't have a link for the rules, and I'm not about to type them in here. However, a couple of the most interesting rules to me are: #2 - The beginning of the film must outline the goals and ideas of the director. (This must be shown to the film's "actors" and technicians before filming begins.) Rule #3 - The end of the film must consist of two minutes of free speaking time by the film's "victim." This "victim" alone shall advise regarding the content and must approve this part of the finished film. If there is no opposition by any of the collaborators, there will be no "victim" or "victims." To explain this, there will be text inserted at the end of the film.

Your thoughts?"

i did a small search on google, and on the dogme95 site, to get all the rules but i couldnt find anything.

Lars von Trier makes incredible movies, but I think he has a dellusional sense of what "rules" can do, and I think he makes them just to break them.

I've got that issue of Filmmaker. Great article. Here's the guidelines for dogme:

1. Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).
  2. The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot).
  3. The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted. (The film must not take place where the camera is standing; shooting must take place where the film takes place).
  4. The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).
  5. Optical work and filters are forbidden.
  6. The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
  7. Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)
  8. Genre movies are not acceptable.
  9. The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
  10. The director must not be credited.
 Furthermore I swear as a director to refrain from personal taste! I am no longer an artist. I swear to refrain from creating a "work", as I regard the instant as more important than the whole. My supreme goal is to force the truth out of my characters and settings. I swear to do so by all the means available and at the cost of any good taste and any aesthetic considerations.
Thus I make my VOW OF CHASTITY."
 Copenhagen, Monday 13 March 1995

It's kind of impossible to avoid breaking #6 in fiction movies, depending on how you define superficial. I'm confused about #3 - can you set the camera down on something already at the location (i.e. a table)?

Quote from: BonBon85It's kind of impossible to avoid breaking #6 in fiction movies, depending on how you define superficial. I'm confused about #3 - can you set the camera down on something already at the location (i.e. a table)?

Documentaries are supposed to be as non-fiction as possible. Hence rule #6. Basically, you're supplying a viewer with hard facts through interviews and other materials. Reinactments, etc. would be frowned upon because it gives the viewer a fictional view of a real event.

As far as #3 goes, I think it's basically meaning go to where your material is. Don't rent out a studio and have people come to you. Film them in as natural a setting as possible which would normally mean no interview rooms or lighting setup. Also, if the events are happening as they're filmed, have it filmed handheld only instead of locking down shots and using pans and zooms. It's to enhance the realism.

Of course this is all my interpretations based off the dogme rules and articles I've read in the past. I could be very wrong.

Quote from: RaikusHere's the guidelines for dogme:

yes but those are the dogme95 rules. im talking about something called "The Dogu Code of Conduct" which are rules only for documentaries

Yeah, you're right. Those guidelines are so close to the ones in Filmmaker that I didn't even notice. I'll try to post those on here tonight when I get home.
------------------
The Dogu Code of Conduct
by Lars van Trier

1. All the locations in the film must be revealed (This is to be done by text being inserted in the image. This constitutes an exception of rule number five. All the text must be legible.).

2. The beginning of the film must outline the goals and ideas of the director (This must be shown to the film's "actors" and technicians before filming begins.).

3. The end of the film must consist of two minutes of free speaking time by the film's "victim." This "victim" alone shall advise regarding the content and must approve this part of the finished film. If there is no opposition by any of the collaborators, there will be no "victim" or "victims." To explain this, there will be text inserted at the end of the film.

4. All clips must be marked with six to twelve frames of black (Unless they are a clip in real time, that is a direct clip in a multi-camera filming situation.).

5. Manipulation of the sound and/or images must not take place. Filtering, creative lighting and/or optical effects are strictly forbidden.

6. The sound must never be produced exclusive of the original filming or vice versa. That is, extra soundtracks like music or dialogue must not be mixed in later.

7. Reconstruction of the concept or the directing of the actors is not acceptable. Adding elements as with scenography are forbidden.

8. All use of hidden cameras is forbidden.

9. There must never be used archived images or footage that has been produced for other programs.

Quote from: RaikusIn case you haven't notice, truth holds no value with Moore.

That site is not legit, and we proved its errors and exaggerations here (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=894&start=60). The site was created by an NRA lawyer. Seriously.

Too bad Icon productions pulled out. The two parties deserve each other. It's hard to decide who I think is more of a self-aggrandizing crackpot windbag, that chest-beating "staunch Republican" homophobe Mel Gibson or that self-promoting, social-ill-trivializing Michael Moore. It's hard to know which is the more ignoble foundation upon which to build your celebrity; an outmoded, embarrassing form of outback machismo, or the most mendacious, self-serving, pity-laden gimmickry one can muster.

And if you think that's opinionated, you should hear what I have to say about Oliver Stone!

Seriously, Gibson and Moore deserve each other. As far as I'm concerned, they're both useless. Give me the Maysles any day for docs, and give me Tim Robbins for an actor who actually looks into what he's talking about and speaks reasonably and rationally when he's doing the talking. [/i]

Quote from: godardianthat self-promoting, social-ill-trivializing Michael Moore . . . the most mendacious, self-serving, pity-laden gimmickry one can muster . . . give me Tim Robbins

I like Tim Robbins (this (http://www.npr.org/programs/npc/2003/030415.trobbins.html) is very good), but he doesn't exactly stir public opinion. How does Michael Moore trivialize social ills? Have you seen his movies? Have you read his books? That's all he's concerned with. Why do people always have to confuse persistence and a sense of humor with self-indulgence? There are better ways to get money and fame than stirring up the minority.

When I saw him march those kids into the K-Mart headquarters and make a big stink and wait around for hours and then cut to him speaking into microphones, I felt sick. I felt like it was sheer exploitation, like I was watching an episode of South Park. I really felt like he was exploiting those people's pain, and I really don't care at all if they were eager participants- it was his suggestion, it was his idea to catch it all on camera and release it as a hugely successful feature documentary produced by/directed by/starring Michael Moore, so I blame HIM.

I'm sure I agree with most of Moore's political positions. But I can't stand his easy shock-tactic methods. When you address serious issues with the sort of cheesy smugness Moore does, I think you trivialize them. Sad to say. Maybe he does some good, somehow, but he doesn't do anything for me but turn me WAYYY off.

Stirring public opinion these days is a filthy game, BTW. "The public" has apparently mutated into an easy, cheap, gullible whore that needs constant low-blow titillation to even lift its head off the sofa. I prefer to try to seek out a shred of dignity, though you have to dig deeper and deeper for that...

I should mention... I love South Park and don't find it exploitative at all. I don't think you'll never catch those guys claiming to act for the public good and congratulating themselves on camera.

Quote from: godardianWhen I saw him march those kids into the K-Mart . . . I felt like it was sheer exploitation . . . I really don't care at all if they were eager participants . . . I can't stand his easy shock-tactic methods. When you address serious issues with the sort of cheesy smugness Moore does, I think you trivialize them.

You're only arguing that because you think he's in it for himself. Is that really is motive? His methods have just as much of an impact on his cause as they do on his audience. They have to know that people will listen to Michael Moore. They have to know that people will be shocked by the truth and seduced by his style. Michael Moore molds public opinion. Tim Robbins gives speeches.

I think his "shock tactics" are just an abrupt revealing of the truth with an ironic sense of humor. And I won't be bothered by them as long as they don't reach exploitation. I don't think you've shown his exploitation--who is harmed (& how?) and who gains from that? Isn't Michael Moore putting himself at risk? It's funny, no one cried exploitation until he became successful with BFC and Stupid White Men.

His "cheesy smugness" as you call it is no different than most political activism. You would call it smug, but I would call it demanding. You call it cheesy, but I would call it a poigniant (and justified) gimmick with a sense of humor.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: godardianWhen I saw him march those kids into the K-Mart . . . I felt like it was sheer exploitation . . . I really don't care at all if they were eager participants . . . I can't stand his easy shock-tactic methods. When you address serious issues with the sort of cheesy smugness Moore does, I think you trivialize them.

It's funny, no one cried exploitation until he became successful with BFC and Stupid White Men.

His "cheesy smugness" as you call it is no different than most political activism.

I beg to differ. Most political activism attempts to call attention to the subject and keep it as far away as possible from the activist. Whenever I think of figureheads for any movement- the Gloria Steinems, the Michaelangelo Signoriles- I always think of Alexander Payne's brilliant Citizen Ruth, the kind of astute political film clumsy-minded Michael Moore could only dream of making (remember Canadian Bacon?).

Pauline Kael was, in fact, calling him on his exploitation way back in 1989 in her review of Roger and Me:

"I've heard it said that Michael Moore's muckraking documentary is scathing and Voltairean. I've read that Michael Moore is a 'satirist of the Reagan period equal in talent to Mencken and Sinclair Lewis,' and 'an irrepressible new humorist in the tradition of Mark Twain and Artemus Ward.' But the film I saw was shallow and facetious, a piece of gonzo demagoguery that made me feel cheap for laughing. I had stopped believing what Moore was saying very early; he was just too glib... He chases gags and improvises his own version of history... The picture is like the work of a slick ad exec... It does something that is humanly very offensive: It uses its leftism as a superior attitude. Members of the audience can laugh at ordinary working people and still feel that they're taking a politically correct position."

Quote from: godardianI beg to differ. Most political activism attempts to call attention to the subject and keep it as far away as possible from the activist.

Try an example from today. Are you enraptured by the subtlety of anti-war protestors, who say "Hail to the Thief" and write "International Terrorist" under a picture of Bush? It's not an environment for subtlety. Subtle protest is crushed in all its forms, and I think you're naive to hold onto the idea that if an idea is presented ellegantly enough it will be noticed.

Quote from: Pauline Kaelthe film I saw was shallow and facetious, a piece of gonzo demagoguery that made me feel cheap for laughing.

I think she missed the point... I didn't laugh once during Roger & Me, and I think you're supposed to be afraid by what you might laugh at. Pauline Kael was right to feel cheap. Moore has been pushing boundaries all his career, and his dark ironies crystalize his arguments. I would be disappointed if he softened with his new fame.

And yes, I called you soft.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: godardianI beg to differ. Most political activism attempts to call attention to the subject and keep it as far away as possible from the activist.

Try an example from today. Are you enraptured by the subtlety of anti-war protestors, who say "Hail to the Thief" and write "International Terrorist" under a picture of Bush? It's not an environment for subtlety. Subtle protest is crushed in all its forms, and I think you're naive to hold onto the idea that if an idea is presented ellegantly enough it will be noticed.

You're not really responding to what I said. See, I don't think of Michael Moore as a protester at all. Most of those protesters don't care if they're anonymous or not, as long as their message is heard. I think, even if his ideologies are the same as those of the protesters, Moore's tactics work hard against what he's trying to say, and I think he cares a good deal about his own celebrity. I'm not demanding subtlety, necessarily. It's more dignity I'm looking for, a voice- it can be as loud as it likes- that's less compromised than Moore's is by his endless grandstanding and self-promotion.

You're right, protest is not an occasion for elegance. But that's why protest can only ever really be a beginning, not an end to itself. Sloganeering is actually much more disposable and fruitless than real discourse; the ability to think and analyze and EFFECTIVELY strategize should never be "crushed" in a democracy. You probably mean "drowned out," but there are still people left who know how to listen and think without being spoon-fed soundbytes. It's laughable that Michael Moore criticizes the TV news when he plays the exact same game. I want someone who's willing to expose the real problem- the fucking game itself.

The protesters could only be honestly compared to Moore if they were to sign their name prominently and twice as big as the message on their "Hail to the Thiefs."

And I think you're naive not to see how grossly self-impressed Michael Moore is, to the detriment of his so-called causes. And it's naive to believe the loudest voice accomplishes the most, regardless of how distorted or simple-minded it is. Michael Moore could become the greatest albatross this country's left wing has ever seen.

Quote from: godardianYou're not really responding to what I said. See, I don't think of Michael Moore as a protester at all. Most of those protesters don't care if they're anonymous or not, as long as their message is heard.

Moore is a celebrity protestor. He's more of a ringleader, and he needs personality to be that. He does it well.

Quote from: godardianthe ability to think and analyze and EFFECTIVELY strategize should never be "crushed" in a democracy.

No it shouldn't, but it is. The corporate media has gone past stifled, past drowned out, and yes, straight to crushed.

Quote from: godardianYou probably mean "drowned out," but there are still people left who know how to listen and think without being spoon-fed soundbytes . . . it's naive to believe the loudest voice accomplishes the most

This mythical elite minority you're talking about will never change anything, will never convince anyone else, and will exist in a bubble. The battleground is public opinion and isolation is suicidal. I think more can be accomplished, more people can be drawn in, by being extreme.

Quote from: godardianIt's laughable that Michael Moore criticizes the TV news when he plays the exact same game. I want someone who's willing to expose the real problem- the fucking game itself.

I think he parodies the game more than you're willing to admit. He doesn't exploit people for the sake of the game... he exploits the game for the sake of people.

Well, I guess there's no real way to gauge how many minds Michael Moore has changed. But I'm guessing he's preaching to the choir to the same extent or moreso than what you termed the "elite minority" ever has.

I guess you and I will just have to disagree on the importance of this nebulous poll-driven thing called "public opinion." Votes are what count (or are the closest thing to an action that counts, anyway), and most people don't vote. Most people don't care. I think more people who vote are interested in analysis beyond soundbytes than those who don't. I don't think it's an "elite minority."

But maybe voters are an "elite minority," then, on your terms. Maybe Michael Moore throwing muddled public tantrums somehow does affect the world. I don't think it does, though. I think it falsely makes people feel like the world is being changed, that what he's doing is somehow radical and victorious. Even if your theory of loudest and most attention-getting being most effective is true, then that means Michael Moore is playing in the arena of our medium-conservative to hardcore-conservative major media- the Fox Newses and CNNs and Rush Limbaughs, right-wing loudmouths reigning supreme in popularity and ratings- and in that case, he will be the one drowned out. When you play with pigs, you get dirty. And I know for a fact that just because those people are the loudest and seem to galvanize the most public opinion merely because they get the most media attention, they do not represent the majority of us, nor do they hold that much sway over public opinion.

Quote from: godardianWell, I guess there's no real way to gauge how many minds Michael Moore has changed. But I'm guessing he's preaching to the choir to the same extent or moreso than what you termed the "elite minority" ever has. [

I don't think the success of his book and movie are mutually exclusive. People read his book and then see his movie, see his movie and then read his book. It's because he doesn't isolate himself, and pushes himself into the mainstream (often with violent results), that he's netting a wider audience. People are seeing this guy taking incredible risks for what he cares about, and they're interested. He can stir up the minority, but he can also inspire the disenchanted mass.

Quote from: godardianI guess you and I will just have to disagree on the importance of this nebulous poll-driven thing called "public opinion." Votes are what count (or are the closest thing to an action that counts, anyway), and most people don't vote. Most people don't care.

Okay, we can disagree about that, but how skewed is your perception of politics that you don't appreciate the importance of public opinion? The atmosphere right now is fear-induced cheerleading and perverted patriotic apathy. Isn't the point to change that?

Quote from: godardianWhen you play with pigs, you get dirty.

But he's going into their world as a proverbial media suicide bomber,  playing their game--inserting himself as a polar opposite--only to expose it and exploit it and parody it, and in typical Moore style, to set up an extreme contrast. These are the people that control public opinion, and he can't ignnore them... and he knows exactly how to work within their system without becoming one of them.

Even though I think Michael Moore is a total ass, I do believe he's talented. And I enjoyed Roger & Me, and found it to be quite a comedy. But to say he's exposing truths, and give him all this credit... I mean, c'mon, anybody can make themselves look "right" if he films for a couple hours, asks pre-determined questions to get certain responses, then cuts them together. The guy's basically a propagandist for the left. Even he admits he skews things to present his version of the truth.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: RaikusIn case you haven't notice, truth holds no value with Moore.

That site is not legit, and we proved its errors and exaggerations here (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=894&start=60). The site was created by an NRA lawyer. Seriously.

Actually you proved no such thing. But nothing like bringing up a blast from the past, eh? And Oh My God! Was it created by a NRA lawyer?! Holy shit! It must be completely false then.

In the real world that provides it with more validity. It's not just some anti-Moore person with an agenda. It's a paid professional with an agenda that could loose his livelyhood if he is slanderous or false with the information he provides. Just because the other side got their story out doesn't mean it's wrong. What a skewed view you have of the world.

Well said.

Quote from: Raikus

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: RaikusIn case you haven't notice, truth holds no value with Moore.

That site is not legit, and we proved its errors and exaggerations here (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=894&start=60). The site was created by an NRA lawyer. Seriously.

Actually you proved no such thing. But nothing like bringing up a blast from the past, eh? And Oh My God! Was it created by a NRA lawyer?! Holy shit! It must be completely false then.

In the real world that provides it with more validity. It's not just some anti-Moore person with an agenda. It's a paid professional with an agenda that could loose his livelyhood if he is slanderous or false with the information he provides. Just because the other side got their story out doesn't mean it's wrong. What a skewed view you have of the world.

NRA people are horribly biased, too. Michael Moore's flaw is acting like he's very, very pure, with no bias and nothing but the best interests of all of us at heart. The NRA- as much as I despise them- are actually more honest than Moore. That's very hard to admit. They're more upfront about their crackpottery. You know what you're getting with them, at least.

That's why I wish the loudest voice on the left didn't seem as gross as the loud voices of the right. I would like to be able to say, "We take the high road. We're more reasonable and rational than those reactionaries on the right." But Moore can be as much of a reactionary loudmouth as Rush Limbaugh. Which is severely depressing.

So depressing, in fact, that I'm going to go read Political Fictions and reassure myself that there are still people who know ideas and dialectical discourse, not just throwing soundbytes out into the void.

Quote from: RaikusAnd Oh My God! Was it created by a NRA lawyer?! Holy shit! It must be completely false then.

Well, it makes me think of the website as more of an NRA response and a faithful defense of Charlton Heston... not anything like an independent analysis.

Quote from: RaikusIt's not just some anti-Moore person with an agenda. It's a paid professional with an agenda that could loose his livelyhood if he is slanderous or false with the information he provides.

Okay.. the NRA doesn't have an anti-Moore agenda? And when was the last time anyone lost their job at the NRA for lying?

Quote from: RaikusJust because the other side got their story out doesn't mean it's wrong. What a skewed view you have of the world.

I just have a problem with people not accepting it for what it is, and ignoring the fact that he's a paid mouthpiece.

Quote from: godardianBut Moore can be as much of a reactionary loudmouth as Rush Limbaugh. Which is severely depressing.

I don't think you're right to equate Limbaugh's personality with with Moore's. Rush Limbaugh sits behind a microphone, huffing and puffing, demonizing the "liberal" mass. Has Moore condemned ideology? He's condemned corporate criminals and corrupt politicians, but he's optimistic about the general public, and his attitude towards people is to inspire them and make them act on their intuitions and stand up against what they think is wrong. Two completely different attitudes and personalities.

Try reading Moore's stuff and listening to him. Is everything he says reactionary and loud? I think you're drawing generalizations from his most memorable (and yes, loudmouth) moments.

No one ever backs me up in these debates.  :yabbse-sad:  Where's jmj when you need him?

I like Michael Moore. I think what he's doing is a good thing and I'm glad that someone's doing it. I too sometimes have difficulty with the way he presents some of his points of view, but the fact is his points of view are right - as far as I'm concerned... I share the same views as the guy so I forgive him certain moments of over-simplification. What he is saying needs to be said. His view of humanity is spot on in my opinion: he's deeply concerned, well-informed, and most of all: optimistic that things can change. He doesn't claim to have all the answers, and is constantly sending out calls for other poeple to take his torch from him and run with it: he wants to bring people out who might otherwise simply sit at home and bitch about the state of things - get them to actually do something to help...

Yes: he can come accross as obnoxious   (I think he is a little),   self-serving   (he is this only in the sense that by helping himself he can better spread the word to help others)   and arrogant   (it's a sad fact that anyone in a position where they have the power to help others must be somewhat arrogant),   but SO WHAT? Even if he, the person, isn't perfect: at least he's getting out there and making a difference (or trying his hardest to - and he is trying his hardest...), and what he has to say needs to be said. I really don't care a great deal how he does it: that, for me, is an artistic concern rather than a political one.

Thank god! Finally Somebody will attack Bush instead of the other way around!  Michael Moore Is just a Funny Brilliant Man!  (Bowling For Columbine,Roger and Me,Awful Truth,TV Nation!)

(It You Try Hard Enough And Stare Real Hard You Can Touch The Cleavage!)

Quote from: joeybdotThank god! Finally Somebody will attack Bush instead of the other way around!  Michael Moore Is just a Funny Brilliant Man!  (Bowling For Columbine,Roger and Me,Awful Truth,TV Nation!)

(It You Try Hard Enough And Stare Real Hard You Can Touch The Cleavage!)

You know, after seeing the black-and-white way some people (not you) on this site see the world, I'm beginning to be more and more inclined to think that Michael Moore, despite his lack of subtlety, actually does do some sort of good somewhere.

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: joeybdotThank god! Finally Somebody will attack Bush instead of the other way around!  Michael Moore Is just a Funny Brilliant Man!  (Bowling For Columbine,Roger and Me,Awful Truth,TV Nation!)

(It You Try Hard Enough And Stare Real Hard You Can Touch The Cleavage!)

You know, after seeing the black-and-white way some people (not you) on this site see the world, I'm beginning to be more and more inclined to think that Michael Moore, despite his lack of subtlety, actually does do some sort of good somewhere.

Yeah, but so does Bush

I'm watching Moore's TV shows on DVD. If you think anything he's done in his movies is exploitative, just watch these. He has a gift for coming up with the most bitter jokes possible (having a guy who needs a new organ give funeral invitations to HMO execs, bringing a voice box choir to tobacco companies on Christmas day). But the more extreme it gets, the more I realize that it can't reach exploitation. These people are doing it voluntarily... they know it's a joke and they are not being tricked or surprise... they're often just as passionate as Moore is... I see him more as an enabler than an exploiter. This is just how he works, and he does it better than anyone. The whole point is to expose the absurd lengths to which people have to go to be heard.

"Farenheit 911" Gets a Release
 
Earlier this year Michael Moore announced his intention to do a documentary about George W. Bush and his family's link to the bin Laden family. Now in a recent talk with the United Press International, he spoke out more about what his aims with the project are:

"The senior Bush kept his ties with the bin Laden family up until two months after Sept. 11...It [the new project] certainly does deal with the Bush and bin Laden ties, it asks a number of questions that I don't have the answers to yet, but which I intend to find out".

A portion of the doco will deal with the business relationship between former president George Bush and the late Saudi construction magnate Mohammed bin Laden (Osama's father). However overall the main thrust of the film will be examining what has happened to the United States since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

The film's french distributors Wild Bunch (outputing through Miramax in the US) are trying to target a world premiere at Cannes but in regards to it's official release, its date will probably be November, 2004... election day.

Quote"Farenheit 911" Gets a Release

Earlier this year Michael Moore announced his intention to do a documentary about George W. Bush and his family's link to the bin Laden family. Now in a recent talk with the United Press International, he spoke out more about what his aims with the project are:

"The senior Bush kept his ties with the bin Laden family up until two months after Sept. 11...It [the new project] certainly does deal with the Bush and bin Laden ties, it asks a number of questions that I don't have the answers to yet, but which I intend to find out".

A portion of the doco will deal with the business relationship between former president George Bush and the late Saudi construction magnate Mohammed bin Laden (Osama's father). However overall the main thrust of the film will be examining what has happened to the United States since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

The film's french distributors Wild Bunch (outputing through Miramax in the US) are trying to target a world premiere at Cannes but in regards to it's official release, its date will probably be November, 2004... election day.

I can't wait! This will be great entertainment.



chris

Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
Source: New York Times

The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.

Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies.

"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."

Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's studio, backed out.

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said that Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."

Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company has the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deems their distribution to be against the interests of the company. Mr. Moore's film, the executive said, is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film could alienate many.

"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.

Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, although such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.

Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "

Mr. Moore's films, like "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," are often a political lightning rod, as he sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like "Stupid White Men," a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.

Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said.

Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's decision to help members of the bin Laden family leave the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.

Mr. Moore initially planned on producing the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but last May it pulled out.

"The project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, a spokesman for Icon, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.

Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had previously produced one of Mr. Moore's films, 1997's "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute the film.

While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive who spoke on condition of anonymity said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution -— which would ideally hoping happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.

This should make people very angry.

Quote from: MacGuffinMr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said that Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

Quote from: MacGuffin"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.

This is what happens when corporations control art. Anything excessively opinionated or outside of mainstream thought is not only marginalized, but captured and disallowed. This episode must be one of the clearest examples of this in recent memory.

The original release date of November is a bit late in the game.  To have the proper impact, the film needs to be released sometime in mid-October for the word to have gotten out, and for the polls to be seriously effected.  Although now, we might not even see a release.

That said, it doesn't surprise me at all that this has happened.  Money makes the world go 'round.  Sad but true.  I thought Disney was gonna boot Eisner.  Guess I lost track of that story.  Anyway, I don't get what Disney is so afraid of -- other than (heaven forbid) making people think and "alienating certain audiences."  Bleh.  Of course, I really do see what they're afraid of -- that some breadbasket or Bible belt idiots are going to hear of this movie, not even see it, and then boycott Home on the Range 2: Barbecue Boogaloo.  There are many routes Disney could've taken here.  Simply say Disney does not endorse the ideas expressed in the film.  But then again, that too would be taking a side.  Or even release the film anyway, figure out how to play both sides of the fence, fan the controversy, and enjoy the swim in all that fresh money it'll rake in.  And how dare they even consider an opinion before conferring with a focus group.

Wednesday, May 5th, 2004
Disney Has Blocked the Distribution of My New Film... by Michael Moore


Friends,

I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter.

Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. The story is on page one of the Times and you can read it here (Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?ei=5062&en=89983012bdce5ec0&ex=1084334400&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=)).

The whole story behind this (and other attempts) to kill our movie will be told in more detail as the days and weeks go on. For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge (well, OK, sorry -- it WILL upset them...big time. Did I mention it's a comedy?). All I can say is, thank God for Harvey Weinstein and Miramax who have stood by me during the entire production of this movie.

There is much more to tell, but right now I am in the lab working on the print to take to the Cannes Film Festival next week (we have been chosen as one of the 18 films in competition). I will tell you this: Some people may be afraid of this movie because of what it will show. But there's nothing they can do about it now because it's done, it's awesome, and if I have anything to say about it, you'll see it this summer -- because, after all, it is a free country.

Yours,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

YEAH! MICHAEL! he's so awesome

Lions Gate and Newmarket to the rescue?

ah now more peopel will flock to see the movie due to the publicity.

man, if only harvey would stand behind his foreign films the way he stands behind michael moore...

Quote from: peteah now more peopel will flock to see the movie due to the publicity.

The publicity and censorship awareness is very good, and I should have expected an explosion like this with Moore's media savvy.

Quote from: peteman, if only harvey would stand behind his foreign films the way he stands behind michael moore...

He's standing by this movie because of his faithful alleigance to the Democratic party, not necessarily because of ideology or free speech.

Moore's '9/11' sparks firestorm
Source: Hollywood Reporter

A developing controversy over Michael Moore's upcoming documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," which promises to be critical of President Bush, has rapidly escalated into a call for a congressional hearing into corporate censorship of the news media and the entertainment industry.

Reacting to media reports that the Walt Disney Co. is refusing to allow its Miramax Films subsidiary to distribute the Moore documentary, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., sent a letter Wednesday to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, requesting a hearing "on the disturbing pattern of politically based corporate censorship of the news media and the entertainment industry in recent weeks."

Said Lautenberg: "While corporate leaders rarely exercise discretion over gross indecency or violence, we have seen a number of corporate conglomerates censor material recently based on a political viewpoint."

In particular, Lautenberg cited the case of Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," a documentary about the Bush family's relationship with the Saudis and America's foreign policy post-Sept. 11, which is scheduled to receive its world premiere at the upcoming Festival de Cannes. "Disney, which is currently distributing 'Kill Bill' -- one of the most violent movies in history," Lautenberg wrote, "is refusing to distribute the new film by Michael Moore because it is critical of President Bush."

Although not available for comment, Moore, who won an Oscar for his most recent documentary, "Bowling for Columbine," posted a message on his Web site. Citing a New York Times report published Wednesday, Moore claimed that Disney had turned thumbs down on the film because "it might 'endanger' millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will 'anger' the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush."

In an interview with CNBC on Wednesday, Disney CEO Michael Eisner said Disney did not want to be involved in the politically charged film's distribution because it "did not want a film in the middle of the political process where we're such a nonpartisan company, and our guests that participate in all of our attractions do not look for us to take sides."

In his call for a hearing, Lautenberg also cited the Sinclair Broadcast Group's refusal to air "Nightline's" tribute to the U.S. military's Iraqi war casualties last week; CBS' rejection of a MoveOn.org advertisement during the Super Bowl; and CBS' decision last year not to air "The Reagans" miniseries.

In an even more pointed attack on Disney, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., weighed in with a letter to Eisner, in which he charged: "By muffling Miramax and Mr. Moore, you are stifling criticism of the Bushes, protecting the Saudis and shortchanging stockholders by gagging a proven moneymaker."

Insiders at Disney appeared to be taken by surprise by the sudden firestorm of criticism surrounding "9/11" because, in Disney's view, the issue had been settled a year ago. To some, the whole issue appeared an attempt to create publicity for the movie on the eve of its premiere.

"In May 2003, the Walt Disney Co. communicated to Miramax and Mr. Moore's representatives that Miramax would not be the distributor of his film," senior vp corporate communications Zenia Mucha said. "Contrary to his assertions, Mr. Moore has had and continues to have every opportunity to either find another distributor or distribute the film himself."

Miramax, which released Moore's 1998 docu "The Big One," became involved in "9/11" last year after Mel Gibson's Icon Prods. backed out of the film. Miramax provided most of the project's $6 million budget through what sources familiar with the project described as a bridge loan. Although the loan does not obligate Miramax to release the movie domestically, according to the same sources, it put Miramax in first position to take U.S. distribution rights.

Disney immediately logged its objections. Contractually, it can prevent Miramax from taking on movies that are rated NC-17 or exceed certain budgets. In the case of "9/11," it invoked a clause that allows it to reject projects that in Disney's judgment are not in the best interests of the company.

Miramax has never put "9/11" on its upcoming release schedule, though Moore hopes to see the film released in time for the fall political season. According to sources, Miramax's distribution of the film had become "a dead issue," but after seeing the nearly completed movie, Miramax co-head Harvey Weinstein hoped to assist Moore in finding another distributor -- possibly with Miramax retaining a financial interest or playing a role in overseeing the movie's marketing.

Focus Features, a subsidiary of Universal Pictures, has expressed interest in the film, and a screening could be set up before Cannes, according to other sources. Focus executives were not available for comment.

Another possible contender could be Newmarket Films, which distributed Icon's "The Passion of the Christ" -- especially because Miramax might want to maintain some interest in the film, a consideration that would be easier for an indie entity like Newmarket to accommodate than a specialty unit like Focus.

A spokesperson for Newmarket declined comment and indicated that president and partner Bob Berney had not yet screened "9/11."

"We are continuing to evaluate our options," Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said. "We are looking forward to resolving this amicably and finding a distributor who will take proper care of the film."

Moore and Eisner did appear to agree on one thing.

In his Web message, a defiant Moore proclaimed: "Some people may be afraid of this movie ... but there's nothing they can do about it now because it's done, it's awesome, and if I have anything to say about it, you'll see it this summer."

In his CNBC comments, Eisner predicted, "That film will get a distributor easily."

Moore: Anti-Bush film will be seen

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.a.cnn.net%2Fcnn%2F2004%2FSHOWBIZ%2FMovies%2F05%2F06%2Fmoore.disney%2Fstory.moore.cnn.jpg&hash=c933496af93316c6bee8dda58eddeb5879e25a03)

(CNN) -- Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker Michael Moore has said the Walt Disney Company is blocking distribution of his new film critical of U.S. President George W. Bush. He spoke to CNN anchor Hala Gorani about the controversy.

Gorani: What was your communication with Disney?

Moore: Almost a year ago after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent that he was upset that Miramax had made the film -- Disney owns Miramax -- and he will not distribute this film.

Miramax said don't worry about that, keep making the film, we'll keep funding it. The Disney money kept flowing to us for the last year. We finished the film last week, and we take it to the Cannes film festival next week.

On Monday of this week we got final word from Disney that they will not distribute the film. They told my agent they did not want to upset the Bush family, particularly Gov. Bush of Florida because Disney was up for a number of tax incentives, abatements ... whatever. The risk of losing this -- we're talking about tens of millions of dollars -- they didn't want to risk it over a little documentary.

Arguing Disney's point, Michael Eisner said, look we don't want to take part in a partisan film right before the election in America. So to be fair to the company, if they feel it hurts their bottom line, why haven't they the right to say they don't want to distribute it?

Our media companies are invested with the public trust. That trust states that they're there to allow all voices to be heard. We live in a free and open society where dissent is not to be stifled or silenced. They have violated that trust. We have only got a few studios left, right, and if we get to a point where they can decide that only these voices can be heard, how free and open is our society at that point?

So Disney signed a contract to distribute this, they got cold feet, they're afraid. Yes, the Bushes will not like this movie ... they will really not like this movie. Because we're going to show things like they haven't seen before about the Bush family, about the war in Iraq and a number of other things.

So what's your next step? You don't have a distributor now but you've had so much publicity in the last few days out of this, you've probably had people calling you to say they're willing to distribute this movie and internationally will it be seen?

The good news is that internationally we already have distributors in much of the world. So it will be seen outside of America for sure some time this year. But I hope it doesn't happen where an American film maker makes a film about America and it can't be seen in America.

What is the message to the rest of the world then? It's not a good message so I'm hopeful we'll shortly have an American distributor. One good thing about Americans regardless of their political stripe is that they don't like to be told they can't see something -- that's what Disney has said. And I'm pretty confident we'll prevail here.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1210805,00.html


It's a PR stunt. They knew back in 2003 it wouldn't be distributed through Disney.

Quote from: SoNowThenIt's a PR stunt. They knew back in 2003 it wouldn't be distributed through Disney.

QuoteMoore: Almost a year ago after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent that he was upset that Miramax had made the film -- Disney owns Miramax -- and he will not distribute this film.

Miramax said don't worry about that, keep making the film, we'll keep funding it. The Disney money kept flowing to us for the last year.

Yeah, that's Miramax, quite a different entity than Eisner. Not that I like Disney or anything, but they have a point to wanna stay out of any political hurricane, which is what Moore's films are. He's going on like they're trying to bury the film, but everyone knows it'll get sold and seen. No one's being censored here.

Moore's just doing what he does best, which is self-promotion. Kudos to him, cos it seems to be working.

Quote from: MacGuffin

Focus Features, a subsidiary of Universal Pictures, has expressed interest in the film, and a screening could be set up before Cannes, according to other sources.

I love those guys

Will it really be that revelatory? I have no idea what the hell is going on any more. My distrust of most media has left me with a sense of detachment from eveyrthing I read or hear. Plus, I think they should really have seperate 'Lite News' and 'Heavy News' programs. I find it uncomfortable to listen to a report on mistreatment of prisoners of war, followed by celebrity breast enhancement rumours.

Is Michael Moore sitting something big, or is he just making something small common knowledge? I wonder if he could do a gritty expose on Tony Blair and it make for compelling viewing.

Quote from: ®edlum
Will it really be that revelatory? I have no idea what the hell is going on any more. My distrust of most media has left me with a sense of detachment from eveyrthing I read or hear. Plus, I think they should really have seperate 'Lite News' and 'Heavy News' programs. I find it uncomfortable to listen to a report on mistreatment of prisoners of war, followed by celebrity breast enhancement rumours.

Is Michael Moore sitting something big, or is he just making something small common knowledge? I wonder if he could do a gritty expose on Tony Blair and it make for compelling viewing.

What you need to do is look up for good newspapers and turn off the TV. You Britons invented The Guardian, fer fork's sake.
And even in that way , reading the news still makes me want to cry.

Quote from: cronopioAnd even in that way , reading the news still makes me want to cry.

You should buy a television! Whoooa man.

but after thinking about it (all day), I'm reminded that this movie really will not make that much of an impact.  it's not gonna detract the Bush supporters, and the probably not that many voters in the middle.  From Michael Moore, Al Franken, to Rush to Coulter to Hannity, to actually informed people like Noam and Molly Ivins (and conservative intellectuals like Robert Bellah)--none of them has made any dent.  They've made dents in their careers, and perhaps each others' careers, and maybe in the history of punditry--but there's no Triumph of the Will or Why We Fight in these works.
Did I just use a lot of words to say "preaching to the choir"?  Maybe.  But the other point I wanna make is that pundits and critics are by nature self-serving at first, their ideologies second, and their targets third.  Not really a messed-up priority at all, it's logical, and we are all like that, but people need to be reminded.

Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles

Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001.

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His last documentary, Bowling for Columbine , made for $3m (£1.7m), pulled in $22m at the US box office.

But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working. A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression.

Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution.

yeah but that article is just a spin on what Michael Moore already said: Disney told them a year ago they wouldn't distribute it, Miramax told him to ignore them and go on making the movies.

The article is just plain speak for what everyone already knows. Of course Moore is using it as a publicity stunt--that's what he does. He already knew that Disney wouldn't distribute, but he'll get a distributor anyway and he's just using the violin to milk the media.

But again, that's what the man does. I just don't see why people are acting surprised over it.

One other thing, though: yeah, he's using it as a publicity stunt, but he is calling attention to something that does have legs, the general media censorship of Bush criticism. So what if he knew a year ago? Even better if Miramax told him to continue -- obviously they wanted the movie made.

But his overall point does have legs. It's been consistent. Remember, for example, when Donohue was canned by MSNBC for criticizing Iraq during the buildup to the invasion? The immediate spin was that he was canceled because of low ratings. In fact, he had the most popular show on the station.

There HAS been a general sense of corporate censorship. And if any of you were alive during the '80s, it happened then, too. It wasn't just that blockbusters were making more money, it's that with Reagan in power the corporations -- most of whom are conservative -- blocked anything controversial.

hrm... just a other way for micheal moore to make fun of bush.
peace

Quote from: indianahrm... just a other way for micheal moore to make fun of bush.
peace

or show everyone what he actually is.

Weinsteins, Disney Near Deal on 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The Walt Disney Co. and the co-chiefs of Miramax Films are near a deal that would allow director Michael Moore to find a new distributor for his controversial documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," company officials said on Wednesday.

Disney, Miramax's parent company, had refused to release the film that chronicles America's reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks and links President Bush's family and prominent Saudis that include the family of Osama bin Laden.

The film is set to premiere at the Cannes film festival, which began on Wednesday in the French Riviera city.

Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said Disney had agreed to sell rights to Moore's film to Miramax co-chief executives Harvey Weinstein and his brother Bob Weinstein, who could then go out and find a new distributor.

A Disney spokeswoman, however, characterized the parties as still being in negotiations.

"We are very happy that Disney has agreed to sell 'Fahrenheit 9/11' to Bob and Harvey," Hiltzik said in a statement. "Bob and Harvey look forward to promptly completing this transaction."

Said Disney spokeswoman Zenia Mucha: "Disney has offered to sell Miramax's interest in the film to either a third party or Harvey and Bob."

Hiltzik said the terms offered by the Weinsteins were similar to a 1999 deal for the movie "Dogma," in which director Kevin Smith challenged Catholic doctrines, raising the ire of some church groups.

In that arrangement, the Weinsteins bought the rights to "Dogma" from Miramax with Disney's agreement, and then signed their own deal to have independent film company Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. release the movie to theaters.

Disney's decision, which it said it had made a full year ago, spurred headlines last week when Moore, the filmmaker behind 2002's Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," went public with the company's refusal to distribute his film.

A spokesman for Moore said he was not immediately available to comment.

Temperatures rise as 'Fahrenheit 9/11' race heats up
Source: Hollywood Reporter

CANNES -- A tight race is now developing among a handful of distributors interested in Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," following the announcement late Wednesday that Bob and Harvey Weinstein are close to an agreement with the Walt Disney Co. to buy back Miramax's interest in the film.

According to several sources close to the situation, the outfits leading that pack are Universal Pictures' specialty division Focus Features and Newmarket Films, where president Bob Berney recently took over distribution of the equally controversial "The Passion of the Christ" for Mel Gibson's Icon.

Lions Gate Films could be a contender as well, according to several sources, because that indie banner has previously rolled out such too-hot-to-handle Miramax fare as "Dogma." In their statement acknowledging the current discussions with Disney, the Weinsteins specifically mentioned "providing Disney a term sheet based on the deal previously done on 'Dogma.' "

Lions Gate has not yet screened "9/11," but both Focus and Newmarket took a look at Moore's film before the opening of the festival.

"9/11" explores the relationship between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia as well as America's foreign policy post-Sept. 11.

One indie insider further said that Miramax could now be exploring a deal with a major studio and possibly looking to split up the film's theatrical, DVD and television rights among various interests. The film's DVD rights could prove particularly lucrative for such a property.

A Miramax representative declined comment on the film's possible bidders.

The Weinsteins, under the deal they are finalizing with Disney, will spend $5 million-$6 million to get back "9/11" in full.

In 2002, MGM unit United Artists -- then headed by indie vet Bingham Ray -- picked up Moore's previous documentary, "Bowling for Columbine," in Cannes and rolled out the film to become the highest-grossing nonconcert docu of all time in North America. One source said that a deal involving Ray, who has since left UA, and another indie distributor was pitched to the Weinsteins but now seems unlikely.

Both Moore and the Weinsteins seem to feel most comfortable in the middle of media maelstroms, which are legendary for both parties. During a recent panel on movie marketing at the Tribeca Film Festival, Ray gave Moore props for being a born marketer.

"That guy pisses someone off every time he walks out his front door," he said.

Moore's movie became the center of a growing controversy last week when Moore charged that he had just learned that Disney was refusing to allow Miramax to distribute the feature.

But late Wednesday, the Weinsteins announced and Disney confirmed that they are in discussions to personally buy out Miramax's interest in the film.

With "9/11" scheduled to have its world premiere at the fest Monday, the Weinsteins have begun the process of looking for a new distributor, and the fest was abuzz Thursday with speculation that a new deal might be struck before the end of the festival.

"We are very happy that Disney has agreed to sell 'Fahrenheit 9/11' to Bob and Harvey. (Miramax) is providing Disney a term sheet based on the deal previously done on 'Dogma.' Bob and Harvey look forward to promptly completing the transaction," Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said Wednesday.

Disney spokesperson Zenia Mucha confirmed: "We are in discussions for Harvey and Bob Weinstein to personally purchase Miramax's rights to 'Fahrenheit 9/11.' Both sides are interested in completing this as soon as possible."

Although a few recent press reports suggested that Disney had refused to allow the Weinsteins to purchase the rights, Mucha said that was not the case, emphasizing that "we have been in discussions for some period of time."

Under the deal that is nearing completion, the Weinsteins are expected to repay Miramax its investment in the film. Disney would retain no interest in the controversial property. And the Weinsteins would then control the domestic rights to the film.

French sales banner Wild Bunch is handling international rights to the movie, which has already been picked up by the United Kingdom's Optimum Releasing.

has this been posted yet?

Moore: Bush Administration Is Trying To Ban My Film

Controversial film-maker Michael Moore has accused President George W. Bush's government of trying to thwart the creation and release of his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. The Bowling For Columbine director told an audience at the Cannes Film Festival that the President's team feared the effect of the film - which exposes the links between the Bush and Bin Laden families - would spell disaster for the Republican party in the upcoming elections. Moore - who famously cried, 'Shame on you Mr Bush' as he received his Oscar in 2002 - is now hoping Miramax bosses Bob and Harvey Weinstein will distribute the film after Disney refused to. According to Moore, "someone connected to the White House, a top Republican" has put pressure on film companies not to release the movie. Moore explains, "The potential for this film to have an impact on the election was much larger than they thought. It is certainly something the Bush administration does not want people to see."

Quote from: El Duderino

Quote from: indianahrm... just a other way for micheal moore to make fun of bush.
peace

or show everyone what he actually is.

I'll second that.

EDIT: After that snippet of news, I'm REALLY excited to see this film.

I just heard on the BBC that Moore snuck cameras into Iraq and had a few journalists imbedded with the army without them knowing it would be for a Michael Moore movie.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI just heard on the BBC that Moore snuck cameras into Iraq and had a few journalists imbedded with the army without them knowing it would be for a Michael Moore movie.

I thought Moore made mention of this already. That he was apparently getting away with it so easily because Iraq was basically being treated as another U.S. state.  :?

Quote from: CinephileI thought Moore made mention of this already. That he was apparently getting away with it so easily because Iraq was basically being treated as another U.S. state.  :?

Is there an interview you can point me to that's not spoilerish?

photo call from cannes film festival (http://www.festival-cannes.fr/films/fiche_film.php?langue=6002&partie=video&id_film=4201423&cmedia=5639)

a press conference is yet to be uploaded.

Here y'all go:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/18/movies/18CANN.html
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,638819,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3722769.stm
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040517/1/3kc5y.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=529&e=1&u=/ap/20040517/ap_en_mo/cannes_fahrenheit_911
http://moviepoopshoot.com/elsewhere/index.html

No, those are all quite spoilerish.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanNo, those are all quite spoilerish.

What parts?

Quote from: StefenWhat parts?

The part at the end, when the world blows up.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: StefenWhat parts?

The part at the end, when the world blows up.

Yeah I read that part. No thanks to you.

"I would love to have a White House screening of this film," Moore said. "I would attend it. I would behave myself."

that's awesome, and will never happen

Lookin' like Focus is going to distribute it...

Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Gets 15-Minute Ovation at Cannes

Controversial film-maker Michael Moore's new documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 was given an unprecedented 15-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival yesterday. The film - which is vying for the Palm D'Or at the glitzy French event - looks at the links between President George W. Bush and the Bin Laden family, as well as the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners of war by American servicemen. Amid the controversy stirred up by Disney's decision not to distribute the film, the audience - which included Kill Bill beauty Darryl Hannah and rocker Mick Jagger - demonstrated their approval by hollering "Bravo" and clapping the piece for over 15 minutes. Miramax boss Harvey Weinstein - who is vying to buy the film from Disney and distribute it via another company - enthuses, "It was the longest standing ovation I've seen in over 25 years."

The NY Times article says it was a 20-minute standing ovation:

"The audience at the afternoon gala screening responded with a 20-minute standing ovation that the festival's artistic director, Thierry Frémaux, said was the longest he had ever witnessed in Cannes."

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThe NY Times article says it was a 20-minute standing ovation:

"The audience at the afternoon gala screening responded with a 20-minute standing ovation that the festival's artistic director, Thierry Frémaux, said was the longest he had ever witnessed in Cannes."

"Well fuck the Times, I read the Post."

um, Antonio Banderas said on letterman that Shrek 2 got a 15min ovation.

so, whatever that means.

Press Conference: "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore

Michael Moore took on a full house of journalists single-handed after the competition screening of his documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, this morning. He fielded questions during a full hour. Here are a few excerpts.

On his intentions: "When I make a movie, it's a movie I'd like to see on a Friday night...I wanted to say something about post-9/11 in America: What's happened to us as a people. This time I was the straight man and Bush had all the jokes...And I hope it will influence people leaving the theatre, encourage them to be good citizens..."

On what is going to shock: "There is footage they have never seen. They will see that things never seen before, starting with Bush's military record, both the year 2000 original document and the 2004 document that has the name James R. Bath blackened...You saw the first abuse segments of Iraqi detainees outside of prison walls; you were the first to see that today...The American people don't like things being kept from them and this film will pull back the curtain on what is going on and they will respond accordingly."

On the theatrical release: "No, it will not be first seen on television; it was made for the screen...It will be released in the US before the election. I am confident that Miramax will make sure they see this film...Miramax has made available the funds and money – before the film comes out - to update it if needed in the next six weeks. It is however a finished film."

If you were President: "We have a president asleep at the wheel...If you have the role of commander in chief, you should pay more attention. I would have tracked down the people responsible for 9/11 and I would bring them down. Why hold back Special Forces for two months? What's going on?"

I'm not sure why every one keeps saying "Moore knew a year ago that he wouldn't get distribution!" He tried to clear it up on his website almost two weeks ago:

A month later, after shooting started, Michael Eisner insisted on meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel. Eisner was furious that Miramax signed this deal with me. According to Mr. Emanuel, Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film. Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake.

But Michael Eisner did not call Miramax and tell them to stop my film. Not only that, for the next year, SIX MILLION dollars of DISNEY money continued to flow into the production of making my movie. Miramax assured me that there were no distribution problems with my film.

But then, a few weeks ago when Fahrenheit 9/11 was selected to be in the Cannes Film Festival, Disney sent a low-level production executive to New York to watch the film (to this day, Michael Eisner has not seen the film). This exec was enthusiastic throughout the viewing. He laughed, he cried and at the end he thanked us. "This film is explosive," he exclaimed, and we took that as a positive sign. But "explosive" for these guys is only a good word when it comes to blowing up things in movies. OUR kind of "explosive" is what they want to run from as fast as they can.

According to yesterday's New York Times, the issue of whether to release Fahrenheit 9/11 was discussed at Disney's board meeting last week. It was decided that Disney should not distribute our movie.

there are some spoilers.

Less is Moore in subdued, effective '9/11'

BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC



CANNES, France -- Michael Moore the muckraking wiseass has been replaced by a more subdued version in "Fahrenheit 9/11," his new documentary questioning the anti-terrorism credentials of the Bush regime. In the Moore version, President Bush, his father and members of their circle have received $1.5 billion from Saudi Arabia over the years, attacked Iraq to draw attention from their Saudi friends, and have lost the hearts and minds of many of the U.S. servicemen in the war.

The film premiered Monday at the Cannes Film Festival to a series of near-riot scenes, as overbooked screenings were besieged by mobs trying to push their way in. The response at the early morning screening I attended was loudly enthusiastic. And at the official black-tie screening, it was greeted by a standing ovation; a friend who was there said it went on "for at least 25 minutes," which probably means closer to 15 (estimates of ovations at Cannes are like estimates of parade crowds in Chicago).

But the film doesn't go for satirical humor the way Moore's "Roger & Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" did. Moore's narration is still often sarcastic, but frequently he lets his footage speak for itself.

The film shows American soldiers not in a prison but in the field, hooding an Iraqi, calling him Ali Baba, touching his genitals and posing for photos with him. There are other scenes of U.S. casualties without arms or legs, questioning the purpose of the Iraqi invasion at a time when Bush proposed to cut military salaries and benefits. It shows Lila Lipscomb, a mother from Flint, Mich., reading a letter from her son, who urged his family to help defeat Bush, days before he was killed. And in a return to the old Moore confrontational style, it shows him joined by a Marine recruiter as he encourages congressmen to have their sons enlist in the services.

Despite these dramatic moments, the most memorable footage for me involved President Bush on Sept. 11. The official story is that Bush was meeting with a group of pre-schoolers when he was informed of the attack on the World Trade Center and quickly left the room. Not quite right, says Moore. Bush learned of the first attack before entering the school, "decided to go ahead with his photo op," and began to read My Pet Goat to the students. Informed of the second attack, he incredibly remained with the students for another seven minutes, reading from the book, until a staff member suggested that he leave. The look on his face as he reads the book, knowing what he knows, is disquieting.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" documents the long association of the Bush clan and Saudi oil billionaires, and reveals that when Bush released his military records, he blotted out the name of another pilot whose flight status was suspended on the same day for failure to take a physical exam. This was his good friend James R. Bath, who later became the Texas money manager for the bin Laden family (which has renounced its terrorist son).

When a group of 9/11 victims sued the Saudi government for financing the terrorists, the Saudis hired as their defense team the law firm of James Baker, Bush Sr.'s secretary of state. And the film questions why, when all aircraft were grounded after 9/11, the White House allowed several planes to fly around the country picking up bin Laden family members and other Saudis and flying them home.

Much of the material in "Fahrenheit 9/11" has already been covered in books and newspapers, but some is new, and it all benefits from the different kind of impact a movie has. Near the beginning of the film, as Congress moves to ratify the election of Bush after the Florida and Supreme Court controversies, it is positively eerie to see 10 members of Congress -- eight black women, one Asian woman and one black man -- rise to protest the move and be gaveled into silence by the chairman of the session, Al Gore.

On the night before his film premiered, Moore, in uncharacteristic formalwear, attended an official dinner given by Gilles Jacob, president of the festival. Conversation at his table centered on the just-published New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh alleging that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld personally authorized use of torture in Iraqi prisons.

Moore had his own insight into the issue: "Rumsfeld was under oath when he testified about the torture scandal. If he lied, that's perjury. And therefore I find it incredibly significant that when Bush and Cheney testified before the 9/11 commission, they refused to swear an oath. They claimed they'd sworn an oath of office, but that has no legal standing. Do you suppose they remembered how Clinton was trapped by perjury and were protecting themselves?"

Would something like that belong in the film?

"My contract says I can keep editing and adding stuff right up until the release date," Moore said. He said he expects to sign a U.S. distribution deal this week at Cannes; the film's producer, Miramax, was forbidden to release it by its parent company, Disney.

After the first press screening on Monday, journalists noted on their way out that Moore was more serious in this film and took fewer cheap shots. But there are a few. Wait until you see Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz preparing for a TV interview. First he puts a pocket comb in his mouth to wet it and combs down his hair. Still not satisfied, he spits on his hand and wipes the hair into place. Catching politicians being made up for TV is an old game, but this is a first.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI'm not sure why every one keeps saying "Moore knew a year ago that he wouldn't get distribution!"

Mostly I say it because Moore said it himself in a CNN interview. You're confusing making a movie with the distribution of a movie. Maybe Moore didn't receive the final confirmation that Disney wouldn't be handling the distribution until a few weeks ago, but when the chairman of the parent company says "we will not distribute this movie" a full year before then you should have a pretty good idea what to expect.

Regardless, this is all one big business ploy that amounts to all sides winning. Moore with the drummed up controversy to push the movie, Disney with selling the rights and looking like heros to the Republicans, and Harvey to make even more money off the film.

Quote from: RaikusYou're confusing making a movie with the distribution of a movie. Maybe Moore didn't receive the final confirmation that Disney wouldn't be handling the distribution until a few weeks ago, but when the chairman of the parent company says "we will not distribute this movie" a full year before then you should have a pretty good idea what to expect.

They were the angry words of a man who hadn't seen (and still hasn't seen) the movie, and he doesn't decide things without the board, especially only a month after shooting started. But I'm sure Moore did have a pretty good idea that Disney wouldn't distribute. He took advantage of the media, but since the board only recently officially voted down Disney distribution, his timing isn't completely arbitrary.

Press Footage (http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2004/DEFGH/Fahrenheit_9-11/trailer.html)

Woo!

Those French people decided to give him their award.

Yay for them!

Quote from: MyxomatosisThose French people decided to give him their award.

Palm d'Or:

http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=5517&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=93

Don't know if this has been posted yet.

Berg Told Filmmaker He Feared Security in Iraq
Sister Calls Video Footage From Michael Moore a 'Gift'
By JASON STRAZIUSO, AP

PHILADELPHIA (May 29) - In an unused interview shot for Michael Moore's latest film, the American who was beheaded in Iraq said he was concerned about security there as he prepared to seek work as an independent businessman, his family said Saturday.

Moore's crew shot the 16-minute interview with Nicholas Berg during an Iraqi business conference in Arlington, Va., on Dec. 4, said his brother, David Berg.
 

Nicholas Berg's decapitated body was found in Baghdad on May 8, and a video of his killing was posted on an Islamic militant Web site several days later.

Moore confirmed Thursday that he had footage of Berg - shot for his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," which is critical of President Bush - but said he would share it only with the family.

Moore sent copies of the footage to David Berg in New Jersey and sister Sara Berg in Virginia. Their parents will see the video after returning to their suburban home from vacation, David Berg said.
 
Sara Berg said her brother told Moore's crew he was nervous about his safety in Iraq.

"He recognized it was a concern, and he kind of pointed out that he'd worked in difficult situations before," Sara Berg said from her home in Virginia. "It's definitely something that he didn't shrug off."

She said her brother seemed enthusiastic in the footage.

David Berg, speaking from his home outside Newark, N.J., said it was "weird seeing Nick talk," but described the interview footage as dry.

The interview, which was not conducted by Moore, centered on the technical work Berg hoped to find repairing radio transmission towers for his company, Prometheus Methods Tower Service. Berg, 26 when he died, also talks about humanitarian work he did in Uganda and Kenya.

"Nick seemed to be fairly conscious of using this thing to promote his business," David Berg said. "(The interviewer) does ask him at one point about the money and he said no one's denying there's money to be made. But it's very clear when you watch it, Nick knew he wasn't going to make a lot of money.
 
Moore said he had considered using some of the footage in his film but it got edited out, David Berg said. Some of Moore's staffers cried when they heard about Berg's death, the filmmaker told David Berg.

"Fahrenheit 9/11," which recently won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, accuses the Bush administration of stealing the 2000 election, overlooking terrorism warnings before Sept. 11, 2001, and fanning fears of more attacks to secure American support for the Iraq war.

Given Moore's political leanings, David Berg said he was "really nervous" about what the footage of his brother might show. His brother wasn't overtly political, he said.

"He went to Iraq because he had certain beliefs about helping people in messed up situations, but it's not like he was trying to help the Bush administration," David Berg said.

David Berg said Moore handled the situation with "dignity, respect and discipline."

"Michael Moore has really been a total class act with this whole thing," David Berg said. "He could have sold this to the media or stuck it in his movie."

Sara Berg said she saw the video footage as a "gift."

'9/11' may have new route to theaters
Source: Los Angeles Times

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," cast adrift after Walt Disney Co. blocked its release, may have found another route into theaters. Lions Gate Films is expected to release the provocative documentary in a matter of weeks.

The advanced talks with Lions Gate for domestic theatrical distribution, confirmed by two knowledgeable sources, come as Miramax Films founders Bob and Harvey Weinstein purchased the movie back from the studio they oversee. The brothers paid about $6 million — the film's approximate cost — to end the distribution stalemate.
 
Miramax and its parent, Disney, announced Friday that the Weinsteins had acquired rights to the film and would be responsible for costs incurred before its release. Disney had blocked Miramax from distributing the movie, which is sharply critical of President Bush's handling of terror threats and the Iraq war.

Sources said that if a distribution deal with Lions Gate was reached soon, "Fahrenheit 9/11" could debut in as many as 1,000 U.S. theaters by late June or the first weekend in July. A New York movie marketing company already is working on commercials for the film.

"It is a fair and equitable solution," Moore said in a statement Friday, referring to Disney's sale of the rights. He previously had accused the company of trying to censor the film.

Lions Gate, Disney and the Weinsteins declined to comment. Miramax said no final distribution deal with Lions Gate had been reached.

Disney Chairman Michael Eisner, worried about the film's partisan tone, informed Miramax a year ago that the Disney subsidiary would be barred from releasing the film, which last week took the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival. News of Disney's decision was reported by the New York Times shortly before the festival began, turning the movie into a cause celebre.

Although Miramax essentially is independent of Disney, the parent company can prevent Miramax from making or releasing films for budgetary, content or ratings reasons.

Moore has told potential distributors that he wanted the film released in the summer and its video to debut in the fall, so that both would precede November's U.S. presidential election.

In the past, Miramax was forced to find alternative distribution for three controversial movies: the graphic adolescent sex story "Kids," the violent high school drama "O" and the religious comedy "Dogma." The last two films eventually were released by Lions Gate.

Both Lions Gate and the Weinsteins could make millions on "Fahrenheit 9/11," as they did with "Dogma." The Weinsteins would give Lions Gate a percentage of the film's proceeds as a distribution fee, keeping much of the balance themselves, according to sources. Moore's previous documentary, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," grossed more than $21 million domestically.

Miramax and Disney executives had been working on the deal to sell "Fahrenheit 9/11" to the Weinsteins for several weeks. One of the sticking points was how Disney would unload the movie without making money on the transaction. The Burbank-based company, according to a person familiar with the talks, did not want to appear to profit from a movie it had blocked.

In announcing the sale, Disney and Miramax said any profit from the transaction would be donated to charity.

Miramax financed most of Moore's documentary after its original backer, Mel Gibson's Icon Entertainment, dropped out. Lions Gate is a division of TV and film producer Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., based in North Vancouver, Canada, and Santa Monica.

Lion's Gate!? I really wanted Focus Features to pick it up...

Have anything against Lions Gate? Focus Features is owned by Universal. Lions Gate isn't owned by anything (it owns Artisan). So there.

Quote from: Chest RockwellLion's Gate!? I really wanted Focus Features to pick it up...

and not have an insert!!!

It's official...

Farenheit 9/11 gets distribution & June 25 release

Associated Press

LOS ANGELES -- Michael Moore's award-winning documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 has picked up a U.S. distributor and will hit theatres June 25.

The film will be released by a partnership of Lions Gate Films, IFC Films, and the Fellowship Adventure Group, which was formed by Harvey and Bob Weinstein specifically to market Moore's film.

Moore's film, which recently won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, criticizes President George W. Bush's response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and connects the Bush family with Osama bin Laden's.

The Weinsteins, who run Miramax Films, bought the rights to the movie from the Walt Disney Co., which owns Miramax and refused to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11.

The Weinstein brothers will personally finance and control distribution and marketing, they said Tuesday.

"I am grateful to them now that everyone who wants to see it will now have the chance to do so," Moore said in a statement.

"On behalf of my stellar cast, GW, Dick, Rummy, Condi and Wolfie, we thank this incredible coalition of the willing for bringing Fahrenheit 9/11 to the people."

Disney chief executive Michael Eisner said the company "did not want a film in the middle of the political process" because he believed that theme park and entertainment consumers "do not look for us to take sides."

In a settlement reached last week, the Weinsteins repaid their parent company for all costs of the film to date, estimated at around $6 million US. Any profits from the film's distribution that go to Miramax or Disney will be donated to charity.

Yay for that.

Some new news, too, which I couldn't decide where to put.  So I figured, here's fine.

Weinstein's (sic) In Talks With Fox?
Hollywood heavyweights Harvey and Bob Weinstein are reportedly planning to quit Disney and take their Miramax studio to 20Th Century Fox. The brothers are thought to have fallen out with Disney bosses after they rejected Michael Moore's Palme D'Or-winning film Fahrenheit 9/11 - reportedly fearing the controversial anti-George W Bush movie would jeopardize alleged tax breaks afforded to their Florida theme parks by the state's governor, George's brother Jeb Bush. And now they are considering striking a deal to take the hugely successful studio - behind hits Chicago, Shakespeare In Love and Good Will Hunting - to Rupert Murdoch's Fox. A source tells American newspaper the New York Daily News, "There are four scenarios. They could stay with Disney. They could leave Disney with the name but not their 500-film library. They could leave Disney with the library but not the name. Or they could leave with nothing and start over. Notice that three out of the four involve leaving Disney."
~IMDb.com

Fox seems to be a worse option than Disney, considering how conservative they are.  I don't see this happening.  But considering how the Weinsteins seem to have shied away from anything controversial these days, they may as well be conservatives, too.

What is this, some kind of ironic revenge? From Michael Moore to Herr Murdoch?

Trailer here. (http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/)

Yes!

(both formats are really buggy right now, though)

I hope they use that music in the movie.

The Windows Media Player version seemed to work better for me even though I'm on a Mac.  I really hate when sites embed movie clips in their pages.  So annoying.

"I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers.  Thank you.  Now watch this drive."
Dubya.

What a wank.  Of course, I'm well aware of Moore's skill in editing footage together.  But still, this movie is going to be awesome.  And I agree, great music.  Now that's a trailer.

Quote from: DonamatopoeiaOf course, I'm well aware of Moore's skill in editing footage together.

There was no cut in that clip. Come on now... see the movie first.

No, I admire Moore's ability to cut footage and I'm trying to take what's presented as objectively as possible.  What I'm saying is it COULD have been taken out of context.  You must've mistaken me for SoNowThen.  Please don't.

The only thing I'm really worried about is, perhaps this movie was released too soon before the election.  Why not wait until late September or early October to let it have a real impact on the election?

Quote from: DonamatopoeiaWhy not wait until late September or early October to let it have a real impact on the election?

Because all the controversy and momentum in the air today will have fizzled out completely.

Quote from: DonamatopoeiaThe only thing I'm really worried about is, perhaps this movie was released too soon before the election.  Why not wait until late September or early October to let it have a real impact on the election?

Quote from: The Los Angeles Times article on the previous pageMoore has told potential distributors that he wanted the film released in the summer and its video to debut in the fall, so that both would precede November's U.S. presidential election.

'comes the years most controversial film' is a pretty tall order in the same year as the passion, but i guess we'll see.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanWhat is this, some kind of ironic revenge? From Michael Moore to Herr Murdoch?

Wouldn't Fahrenheit 911/Passion of the Christ make a great DVD 2-pack?

i have a michael m$$re related question?

isnt MM just like rush limbaugh in that one person does all of thier left wing propaganda on film...and the other does all of thier right wing propaganda on radio?

..note: i m not a fan of either but i am curious of an answer.  

as for F 9/11 i really did enjoy BFC regardless if it was part fabricated or what not or if it is all true.  ..BFC was remarkable.  and  i hope that F 9/11 is just as good.....

Quote from: Ravi

Wouldn't Fahrenheit 911/Passion of the Christ make a great DVD 2-pack?

I really wish Icon had gone ahead and financed it...what a delectable conflict of interest that would be for those folks who believe that Mel and everything he touches should be canonized.

Quote from: NEON MERCURYisnt MM just like rush limbaugh in that one person does all of thier left wing propaganda on film...and the other does all of thier right wing propaganda on radio?

Well, here's the difference:

Political propaganda (in this context) means fabrications invented and disseminated by the dominant power. The extreme right wing has been in power since 1981. Coersive powers (like our government) by definition have to shape perceptions (i.e. fabricate and lie) to stay in power.

Compare those motives with those of some one like Michael Moore. I'm tired of people assuming money is his motivation. Really, what evidence is there for that? His books and movies make a lot of money. It's not surprising... they're popular. Ralph Nader is exponentially wealthier than Moore. Who accuses him of being in it for the money? There are thousands and millions of people challenging the government on the same bases as Moore, many of them more eloqeuntly... are they in it for the money? It's absurd to dismiss the whole widespread ideology that Moore represents simply because you don't trust his personal motives for being popular. (as if any enemy of the state can be popular if they want money bad enough.)

Michael Moore explains his connections to Lions Gate and IFC

These are great distributors. Jon Feltheimer, the man who runs Lions Gate, was the executive in charge of the company that produced my television series, "TV Nation." And the people at IFC (which owned Bravo) were the same people responsible for funding and broadcasting my other series, "The Awful Truth." So we are in very good hands.

look at that trailer--how can that trailer get them joe swing voter into the the theater?  it looks way too indie to oust George W Bush.

Turn on C-SPAN now (8:04 PM EST, Friday June 4th) for some sort of talk on homeland security.  This guy Christopher Cox has mentioned Fahrenheit 9/11.  He's a republican.  Calls it propaganda, seems obviously against the film, and quotes with contempt the part of the film that intones "you can make people do anything if they are afraid."

Quote from: DonamatopoeiaCalls it propaganda

Funny how often people get away with saying "IT'S JUST PROPAGANDA" without evidence.

Let me guess... he said the film gives aid and comfort to the enemy?

Moreso that Moore and his ilk are blinded by hatred for Bush and ideological beliefs (heaven forbid someone be ideological these days).  But yeah, that sounds about right.  Not really comfort for the enemy, I'm sure, but it probably approaches empathy.  And they hate that.  But I wish I had rewind, or TiVo, or something, so I could catch all of what he said.

One zinger though: "I'm a believer in technology ... artificial intelligence beats real stupidity."  Wow, who's his writer?

Quote from: El Duderino

Quote from: indianahrm... just a other way for micheal moore to make fun of bush.
peace

or show everyone what he actually is.

can't he do both?
heh
peace

Quote from: petelook at that trailer--how can that trailer get them joe swing voter into the the theater?  it looks way too indie to oust George W Bush.

Please explain this.  By "indie" do you mean too intelligent for the average movie consumer to understand?  And was Bowling for Columbine too "indie"?  It did quite well if I remember correctly.

it begins with a cannes palm d'or, a talking head, a philip glass-sounding score, a conspiracy theory...etc., things for people who've already been converted.
Bowling for Columbine was pretty cool that it did well "for a documentary", but all the things Michael Moore promised didn't really happen--shaking the nation, getting everyone into a discussion on violence, making an impact...etc., America still went to war, and he even got booed for saying the same thing he won the award for.

pete,

i like your new av ..the old one was Too billy elliot meets "data" from the goonies for my tastes...
thank you for making me alot  happier...

you won't think that after you've seen Ping Pong.

this seems like a pretty good place to post this. (http://www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/index.phtml)

Quote from: xerxesthis seems like a pretty good place to post this. (http://www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/index.phtml)

that's pretty good, will get larger audience this way..

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.ucomics.com%2Fcomics%2Ftd%2F2004%2Ftd040605.gif&hash=e3e88aa2b7aa88a240bc2d7cfb58329ff72cdc7c)

QuoteBowling for Columbine was pretty cool that it did well "for a documentary", but all the things Michael Moore promised didn't really happen--shaking the nation, getting everyone into a discussion on violence, making an impact...etc., America still went to war, and he even got booed for saying the same thing he won the award for.

I think you're being pessimistic.  You can't be serious in thinking the movie was going to bring about near instantaneous, sweeping change, right?  I don't think it can be denied that Bowling opened up many peoples' eyes to what's happening to this country.

Quote from: peteit begins with a cannes palm d'or, a talking head, a philip glass-sounding score, a conspiracy theory...etc., things for people who've already been converted.

Is this what makes "indie"?

I think you're being condescending.  putting "indie" in quotes like I'm some kinda dumb Hollywood watching kid.  I was speaking on behalf of the people that Michael Moore wants to reach to, something that Miramax has better chances with than Focus Features and IFC.  By "indie" I meant c'mon, average Americans won't want to go see a movie like that in the summer.  Not with that type of campaigning.  Especially not the Joe Public that Carl Rove and his cohorts are spending millions over.  I didn't say philip glass music makes "indie", I was saying "too indie for the average American".

pessemistic?  I wasn't the one who booed him on the academy night nor was I one of the 70%+ people who supported us going into the war.  whose eyes did Bowling open?  and how?  maybe high school kids who are never gonna touch a gun in their lives, and whose impressionable minds will be molded anyways when they get to the colleges.  But the people who are violent, who want to shoot things and people up, who are racist, who are greedily selling guns to youngster, who promote violence--none of them is going to watch this film, not their children either.  Can you imagine the two kids from Columbine watching this film and walk away with a sweeter brighter understanding of the American society?  

why can't I be serious when I wanted a more visible sign of the film's impact?  Michael Moore was serious when he told everyone in a prophet-like fashion via emails and other forms of aggressive campaigns.   that happened for months, and you were seeing the TV spots everywhere, in the magazines and papers.  Right now the new Bush movie is two weeks from opening and all we've got is that little philip glass talking heads trailer.  It looked like the Fog of War trailer with a chubbier guy asking the questions.  go out in the open space man, I dunno where you live, but look around, show them the trailer, and see if they wanna go see it.

Pedro the trailer critic says:  That trailer is shit.  Good call pete.

Quote from: petego out in the open space man, I dunno where you live, but look around, show them the trailer, and see if they wanna go see it.

Um, the distribution deals were only signed a few days ago. I'm sure there will be plenty of hype before it opens.

BTW, has anybody paid attention to the Weinsteins' company's name: The Fellowship Adventure Group. A silly LOTR reference.

Quote from: mutinycoBTW, has anybody paid attention to the Weinsteins' company's name: The Fellowship Adventure Group.

Otherwise known as: FAG

Quote from: mutinycoA silly LOTR reference.

HA! hilarious! :lol:

QuoteBy "indie" I meant c'mon, average Americans won't want to go see a movie like that in the summer.  Not with that type of campaigning.

Pete, I apologize if I sounded condescending.  That was not my intention.  Perhaps I give the American public too much credit.  However, I think that his films are very accessible and that's what makes them great.  Will most people go to see the latest bigbangsmashemup popcorn debacle?  Absolutely.  But I also think that alot of people are going to see this film too.

Quotepessemistic?  I wasn't the one who booed him on the academy night nor was I one of the 70%+ people who supported us going into the war.

I think because of the way this administration is handling things, people are going to sit up and take notice of this film.    That's my hope anyway.  This film is needed now more than ever.  And I think the political climate has changed quite a bit since the Academy awards.  Some polls are suggesting that Bush might be on the out and out, so to speak.  

Quotewhose eyes did Bowling open?  and how?  maybe high school kids who are never gonna touch a gun in their lives, and whose impressionable minds will be molded anyways when they get to the colleges.  But the people who are violent, who want to shoot things and people up, who are racist, who are greedily selling guns to youngster, who promote violence--none of them is going to watch this film, not their children either.  Can you imagine the two kids from Columbine watching this film and walk away with a sweeter brighter understanding of the American society?

I know quite a few people who have seen it and I've had very heated, engaging conversations about it with them.  I simply can't dismiss this film by saying it hasn't stimulated some critical thinking and opinions.  But that's just me.  

Quotewhy can't I be serious when I wanted a more visible sign of the film's impact?

Wal-Mart stopped selling hand guns.  Rome didn't fall in one day.

Part of the audience will be pro-Bush people who are curious about the controversy, and I'm sure those people will tell their friends, and the film's contents will get media coverage.  Whether your ignorant Joe six-pack who thinks patriotism is never questioning the government will see this film is up to debate.  More people know about Moore now than they did when Bowling for Columbine was released, so depending on how wide Fahrenheit 911 opens, it will probably do close to BFC's total on opening weekend.

...i m a conservative fellow and i can t wait to see this. ..the hype surrounding this movie has gotten me very excited..and i enjoyed BFC.  i want to see why iot got the palme also [since it was the first doc in amny of years to get it].....and as some of you may know lynchs wild at hearteceived the palme.. so whatever film gets the award it must be a triumph. ..but as i stated earlier i think moores recipe for a documentary is one part truth and the other part propaganda and stirs it together in his "own" pot and boil it. ..i think even the moore supporters aren t that silly to think that EVERYTHING HE SHOWS ONSCREEN IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH IN EVERY ASPECT....even though its labeled as a doc F 9/11 will be edited and created and [molded] to moores opinion...and its fascinating to me...he makes docs very interesting and fun to watch.  to bwe honest w/ you guys i would not have owned or respected the docs as much as i do now w/o seeing BFC...but i am not saying that F 9/11 is complete falsities..it will contain both......remember documentary is an expressive art form........................................................................

Quote from: NEON MERCURYbut as i stated earlier i think moores recipe for a documentary is one part truth and the other part propaganda and stirs it together in his "own" pot and boil it

Moore's documentaries are not cold fact reporting, obviously. They're opinionated analysis. But when you watch Farenheit 9/11, please please please Neon do not just dismiss the cold facts and the footage as part of his "propaganda."

And as we discussed before, the definition of propaganda (as we use it) is something that's used by the powerful and the elite to legitimize their own power and crush dissent. Moore doesn't represent or speak for elite media (nor does any leftist organization), the government, or any dominant interest. A brief glimpse into history will tell you that the liars are most often the ones in power (who write history books).

.... :yabbse-thumbup: ...

i will be watching w/ an open mind...

Starry night for Michael Moore
The West Coast premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11" draws a big (and famous) crowd. Source: Los Angeles Times

It was the kind of crowd you might expect at the premiere of a Michael Moore film: larger than life, left-leaning and grungy — much like the filmmaker himself.

Moore, clad in black but minus his trademark baseball cap, sat in a back row at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences theater in Beverly Hills on Tuesday for the West Coast premiere of his antiwar, anti-Bush documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Some industry folks noted that the celebrity turnout — which included Larry David, Meg Ryan, Jodie Foster, Ellen DeGeneres, Spike Jonze, Norman Lear, Rob Reiner, Martin Sheen, Michael Bay, Brett Ratner, Steven Zaillian and Joe Carnahan — topped even the Golden Globes, although fashion designers might have wept.

The casually dressed crowd (there wasn't a gown in sight) was so taken with Moore that it gave him a standing ovation before the movie even started.

Miramax Films chief Harvey Weinstein paid a brief tribute to President Reagan before the 7 p.m. screening, then alluded lightheartedly to his company's troubles with its corporate parent, the Walt Disney Co., which has refused to distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11" and is rumored to be willing to sell Miramax back to its founders, Weinstein and his brother, Bob.

Harvey Weinstein joked that he'd placed an ad in Wednesday's Los Angeles Times: "Two executives looking for company to run. Résumés on request."

The documentary, which explores ties between the Bush clan and the Saudi royal family, revisits the Bush administration's rationale for the war against Iraq and contains graphic images of violence. It is scheduled to open in 1,000 U.S. theaters on June 25 and will be distributed by Lions Gate Films and IFC Films.

After the film, Moore publicly thanked the Weinsteins for their support. He introduced his father, asked his crew to stand, and talked about how encouraged he was about the future of the documentary form, noting that "Super Size Me" had ranked 10th at the box office last weekend.

For some at the academy, the evening was something of a family affair: Sharon Osbourne came with Jack and Kelly. Arianna Huffington brought her eldest daughter, Christina. Danny DeVito and Rhea Pearlman were there with a teenage son.

A second screening, which took place at the nearby Music Hall theater at 10 p.m., (presumably for TiVo-deprived Laker fans) was considerably less star-studded, although Chris Rock, Catherine O'Hara, Billy Crystal and Jack Black lent the event some cachet.

Moore noted in remarks after midnight that "Fahrenheit 9/11," which won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival in May, will be released in many more theaters than his Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine."

"Americans will see this film in every city," he said. "Hopefully, it will help anyone who's undecided…. That would be a small contribution to the country."

Moore said his inspiration for the film came as he read a New Yorker story in November 2001 about how members of the Bin Laden family left the United States just after the Sept. 11 attacks. "They got a free plane while my wife and I were stranded in L.A.," said Moore.

"At that point, it became personal."

In response to a question from the audience, Moore expressed remorse for playing off the title of Ray Bradbury's famous novel "Fahrenheit 451" without permission.

Bradbury, said Moore, "was bummed out I didn't call him first. I'll call him tomorrow. I so admire the guy…. The title is an obvious homage." (In Tuesday's Variety, Bradbury said he was offended that Moore did not ask permission to borrow his famous title. "He steals things without permission," said Bradbury. "He's not a very nice person, is he?")

When Moore was asked whether the movie had been screened at the White House, he said no, but he noted that "Roger & Me," his first documentary, had been shown to President George H.W. Bush at Camp David, in Maryland.

"I'd love to show it to George W.," said Moore. "He has the best lines in the movie … all the comedy comes from him."

click for bicker pick

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.movieweb.com%2Fgalleries%2F990%2Fposters%2Fposter1_full.jpg&hash=2b2d780e2d2014fdb890fc769a56eadf986d2a5a) (http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/990/posters/poster1.jpg)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.movieweb.com%2Fgalleries%2F990%2Fposters%2Fposter2_full.jpg&hash=1e979cd9d5930dca62683e68f9a008b50ef565b2) (http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/990/posters/poster2.jpg)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.movieweb.com%2Fgalleries%2F990%2Fposters%2Fposter3_full.jpg&hash=be9fd54b65b1885caf825512e90486b9eae933a3) (http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/990/posters/poster3.jpg)

meh.

that's pretty terrible.  moore is getting more annoying every day.  i wish he'd focus more on the issues than himself, because he has great things to say.

Quote from: Pedrothat's pretty terrible.  moore is getting more annoying every day.  i wish he'd focus more on the issues than himself, because he has great things to say.

That Rhymes.

Quote from: SiliasRuby

Quote from: Pedrothat's pretty terrible.  moore is getting more annoying every day.  i wish he'd focus more on the issues than himself, because he has great things to say.

That Rhymes.

yeah.  i flow.

Quote from: Pedrothat's pretty terrible.  moore is getting more annoying every day.  i wish he'd focus more on the issues than himself, because he has great things to say.

Relax... apparently there's much less of him in this movie than in Bowling for Columbine.

That's why Roger & Me is greater on several levels. It's hard to top the Christmas Eve sequence.

Those posters are pretty weak and/or photoshopped. And the taglines are even worse. Especially because it should be "the temperature where at which freedom burns. And the "controversy" tagline is just silly.

BIG FAT SWEATY DRIPPING SPOILER
(admin edit)

E&R said there were a few things they didn't like about the film, such as the happy montage of Baghdad before the invasion, but of course they liked the film overall.

I want to see this..

Michael Moore is an expert at directing mockumentaries.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.movieweb.com%2Fgalleries%2F990%2Fposters%2Fposter2.jpg&hash=739fde923ea589730da8a653583d282fc6174082)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F074325337X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=fc494b9aa2a1944ccd637d43c6a6469f70359b94)

From the same set of photos?

Same hand.

Quote from: Pedrothat's pretty terrible.  moore is getting more annoying every day.  i wish he'd focus more on the issues than himself, because he has great things to say.

right on,  he  does bring up great intresting ideas, but i think after BWC, moore kinda think to much of himself. maybe that guy who film  "micheal moore hate america"  can make him think more about the issue than himself
peace

Just saw a commercial on Comedy Central for F911.  Life is good.  :)

Someone is taking on Michael Moore?  And doing the same thing to him that he did in Roger and Me?  

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

I think thats funny...and i'm posting this at risk of it being old news.

Not too late, but cross-referenced: http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=6363 (Not as if you'd know to look for it there.)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html


'9/11': Just the facts?

June 18, 2004

BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC  


A reader writes:

"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.

That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.

The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.

Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive.

Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.

I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems.


Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.



Considering the presence of inaccuracies in BFC, I hope this time around Moore made sure that he wasn't fudging the facts.

QuoteThe pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

I don't see how his "ambush" on Heston (if you can really bring yourself to victimize him) is an "inaccuracy." And the plaque thing was just his opinion of what the plaque implies... it's not like he quoted it.

i think the idiots succeeded in creating such controversy over BFC that now the accepted truth is that it was sumhow FULL of blatant inaccuracies. the hype was overblown and now everyone just assumes that it is a tainted work, when in fact the points it made are still relevant, and it deserved the accolades.

so whatever, expect the same thing this time, sum group of idiots will attack a couple of scenes and once again not argue any of the points the movie makes. because to them and to everyone else, it is more important to act naive about the reality of film and documentaries than to think about what is going on.

i just hope that in light of recent FACTS, the same ppl who think BFC is manipulative hav equal if not stronger distrust for their established network news media sources, and their government. done and done.

f 911 already under rain of shit*

the link is in P's post
VVVVVVV


* by this I mean media fact-attacks

Quote from: rustinglassf 911 already under rain of shit*
http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/f911facts/


* by this I mean media fact-attacks

am i missing sumthing? there's nothing anti-f911 there at all, maybe u mean this link: http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/f911facts/isikoff.php

even then, it's pretty weak. i would hardly call it a rain of anything.

um, yeah, that's the one

Yeah, umm, where exactly is this rain of shit?  Isikoff clearly has an agenda.  I wouldn't be surprised if more of these "partisan" attacks happen in the coming days.

alright, sorry, I chose the wrong term, I mean these kind of attacks of course.

I agree with most of the points in the film -- which was sold out all day on all 3 screens at the theater I went to -- only I just don't really think the MOVIE was that good. I felt like I'd seen it all already.

Why has this film not have been rated yet? Is that a joke, or can the MPAA really not make their mind up?

I was looking up showtimes on moviefone, and the info for the movie had it rated NC-17. Is this true? Anyone have any info on this?

It's rated R.

baahaha, Bill O'reilly getting owned on The View right now.

O'Reilly: Moores new movie is nothing more than propoganda.
Skinny View Girl: Then so is your show.
O'Reilly: Well my show is fact.

AUDIENCE ERUPTS INTO LAUGHTER. O'Reilly turns beet red.

Quote from: StefenAUDIENCE ERUPTS INTO LAUGHTER.

That just made my day.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asahi-net.or.jp%2F%7Eff4a-tky%2Fstkarat.jpg&hash=ae3fd4a82a49ac83c681c864fd5233a326f3f103)

TAKE THAT, Bill O'Reilly!

Moore is on The Daily Show tonight and Conan tomorrow.

Any day that Bill O'Reilly is humiliated is a good day.

I heard that one or more theaters in NY ran the movie all night long to keep up with the demand.

Has anyone seen the trailer for Disney's America: Heart & Soul? Or whatever it's called? Looks like Eisner's trying a little hard at the damage control...

some spoilers

This is one of the most emotionally powerful movies I've seen. And I don't mean emotional like Bowling For Columbine... I mean emotional on a larger scale and scope.

This is technically and artistically Moore's best movie... I don't think many people will disagree. It makes BFC feel like a footnote. It's much closer to Roger & Me. He's obviously realized that when he has material this good, he doesn't need to step in very often. The amount of information in this movie is astonishing. The significance of that information, and the fact that it will reach millions of people, is even less fathomable.

I knew instantly that my favorite thing about Fahrenheit 9/11 is the editing. It's absolute genius from the very beginning. The opening credit sequence is classic... subtle and silent but so expressive and overwhelming. It goes on like this for at least the first 1/3 of the movie. The only thing I can think of that rivals F911's editing is the Christmas Eve sequence in Roger & Me.

The opening election stuff was very good, if a little fast (the chronology and political details could be much more precise and less simplifying, though they're not misleading). The Saudi stuff, the corporate stuff, and the 9/11 stuff were all virtually flawless and very powerful. Factually and emotionally powerful at the same time. Which is surprising and satisfying, because I think this is exactly the kind of unity he's always sought. And it works beautifully.

When we get to the Iraq part of the movie, things slow down a little... which is not necessarily a bad thing. Up to this point, profundities have been firing at machine gun pace, and I guess it's okay to take somewhat of a break. It starts to look like a Why Iraq Is A Disaster FAQ, and I'm about to release a sigh of boredom, when...

The original Iraq footage weaves itself into the movie and the only thing I can do is ask myself... am I really seeing this? Not only is there serendipitously a Christmas Eve scene ironically similar to the one in Roger & Me, there are horrifying interviews with troops who play "Fire Water Burn" (lyrics here (http://www.musicsonglyrics.com/B/Bloodhound%20Gang/Bloodhound%20Gang%20-%20Fire%20Water%20Burn%20lyrics.htm)) in their tank as they roll into Baghdad. The ensuing commentary on military recruiting (it's amazing how seamless these transitions are) is really unique, and the day-in-the-life episode with the predatory recruiters is simultaneously tragic, absurd, and hilarious in the way that only a Michael Moore movie can be.

My only significant complaint about the movie: Michael Moore. He almost let the material and the editing completely do the work for him, but he too often states the obvious and opines when it's completely unecessary. The worst thing about it, really, is how he says it. His tone of voice can be obnoxious and distracting... either faky (when he's concerned) or sarcastic (when he's pissed off). This is a minor complaint, and I realize that (A) the production value of his narration suffered because the movie was finished at the last minute and (B) these obnoxious moments only happen two or three times throughout the movie.

I disagree. While I agree with its message, the film seemed more like a stunt to me. It seemed like it would've played better on TV, and lacked the entertainment of his previous films. I can see myself still going back to those in years, not this. It seemed rushed and designed more to affect the moment than to have any longterm sense of quality about it. The humor seemed overdone and repetitive (homorously juxtaposed music), and the tragic elements, with their mood music, seemed manipulative.

That said, I hope it does its job. The audience I saw it with gave it a thunderous applause.

Quote from: mutinycothe film seemed more like a stunt to me.

More than other Michael Moore movies? How so?

The movie is basically a one-size-fits-all comprehensive denunciation of the Bush administration. Is that what feels stunt-like?

Quote from: mutinycolacked the entertainment of his previous films . . . the humor seemed overdone and repetitive

What kind of entertainment do you want, then? Aren't the Bush clips alone entertaining enough for a whole movie?

Quote from: mutinycothe tragic elements, with their mood music, seemed manipulative.

Which ones? If you're talking about the SPOILER military mother story, I know exactly what you mean (that was tonally top-heavy). But I thought all the other tragic elements were extremely well-done and felt completely natural.

A few surprising appearances at the New York premeire...

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fahrenheit911.com%2F_images%2Fabout%2Fnypremiere%2Fphotos%2F07.jpg&hash=4708af39102dbaf823ee292ddd8820a40142da5b)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fahrenheit911.com%2F_images%2Fabout%2Fnypremiere%2Fphotos%2F06.jpg&hash=2b7635c142caba0055405f81ade184551b5d5e1d)

Gunna go see this on Sunday I think.

Woohoo!

Saw it today. I'm reeeeeeeaaaaaally impressed with the ability Moore has at making the audience agree with him (call it manipulation, if you will). And the editing is very well-done, as blackman said, which is obviously important for a subjective documentary that aims to persuade its audience. Even if one doesn't agree with the material, one can not deny the power Moore wields and his skill at crafting a documentary. Call it propaganda, fine. It's probably the best propaganda I've ever seen.

Quote from: Chest RockwellSaw it today. I'm reeeeeeeaaaaaally impressed with the ability Moore has at making the audience agree with him (call it manipulation, if you will). And the editing is very well-done, as blackman said, which is obviously important for a subjective documentary that aims to persuade its audience. Even if one doesn't agree with the material, one can not deny the power Moore wields and his skill at crafting a documentary. Call it propaganda, fine. It's probably the best propaganda I've ever seen.

I think you're right. It is exactly what you said, "a subjective documentary that aims to persuade its audience." But given the information (which is true and not misleading or out of context) it's extremely difficult to disagree with Moore's conclusions, some of which are obvious... corporations should not run the government, those same corporations should not rule the world using our country as their parasitic host, etc etc. Although there are just a few journalistic weaknesses, as I mentioned before (but let's not forget he's covered all those things in exhaustive detail in his books), it's going to be difficult for people to deny that (A) the film is factually solid (it's hard to argue with video evidence) and (B) Moore's conclusions are reasonable and often painfully obvious. If the media wants to call that propaganda, that's technically true... but like I've said before, it's dangerously stupid to confuse it with propaganda created by those in power and imposed on the population. Read an Orwell book and you'll know the difference.

It feels like a stunt because it has one sole purpose: to convince its viewers not to reelect Bush. It came just months before the election for that very reason. It's geared to elicit a specific reaction.

Unlike say, Columbine, which was more interested in stirring debate. It wasn't anticipated. It came from nowhere. And Moore had as much time as he needed to work on it. Here, he had a deadline to affect.

When I use the word "entertainment", I'm referring to the enjoyability of watching the film. Columbine is more enjoyable because it's timeless -- it's about the Amercian culture. 9/11, however, will be dated. It might ultimately be considered a more "important" film because of its shotgun execution, but his previous film was better thought out. And as for the Bush clips, you can see those any night of the week on the news.

I think people are reacting more strongly to the content which they (and I too) agree with, than the filmmaking itself.

Saw it today.  I know what Moore's agenda is and watched it with that in mind...and it's still one of the most powerful movies I've ever seen.  Even if 911 or Iraq had never  happened...the rest of the facts are astonishing and should not be ignored.  

I think Moore's fans should watch it very closely...and his detractors should watch it even closer.

It doesn't matter that it was made to convince people not to re-elect Bush.  I hope it accomplishes that.  The facts about Bush and his administration are presented here, and I could not find any gaping holes.  The filmmaking itself is terrific, except for the slight overuse of songs over the footage.

According to MCN:

Fahrenheit 9/11 On Fire In Theaters... Early Numbers On Friday Projecting To A $10m - $12m Day... Sell Outs In Most Major Markets... Could Be A $30m Weekend...

Quote from: mutinycoIt feels like a stunt because it has one sole purpose: to convince its viewers not to reelect Bush.

And how is that illegitimate? Sure, it feels different, and it is, but like Pubrick has said, how do we really justify that lingering feeling that it's somehow tainted?

I've read a few reviews. And it boggles me why film critics continue to call Michael Moore a "bully." Since when has rebellion against those in power been an oppressive act? It reminds me that the blame the victim impulse has pervaded our culture so much that many people are only outraged about rape when it happens to a minor or the victim is kidnapped/killed.

And Ebert, who recently complained about BFC inaccuracies without citing any, just published a review laced with inaccuracies. He claims that "only Moore thought to contact the teacher" from the 9/11 classroom when in fact the video has been on the internet for months. He says Moore "brings along an unsuspecting Marine recruiter as he confronts congressmen"... he was not even close to being "unsuspecting," and I'm not sure that he was even a recruiter.

And I can't believe how strongly I disagree with every word of this statement, one of the most confusing things Ebert has written:

If the film is not quite as electrifying as Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," that may be because Moore has toned down his usual exuberance and was sobered by attacks on the factual accuracy of elements of "Columbine"

What Ebert describes as "catching his subjects off guard" has enormous deconstructive power, and more often than not reveals some kind of truth. And on a personal level, it's absolutely thrilling, exactly like Bush's April 13 press conference (if only Moore could have included some of that footage). It's not violence, it's not harassment, and I can't think of how it's illegitimate.

Quote from: mutinycoColumbine, which was more interested in stirring debate . . . Columbine is more enjoyable because it's timeless -- it's about the Amercian culture. 9/11, however, will be dated.

BFC, first of all, is almost as closely linked to a time in American history and culture. While it includes history of violence, the concern is the absolute now. Are Charlton Heston and the Columbine Massacre more timeless than, for example, the U.S./Saudi relationship or military recruiting?

I see what you're getting at, but I would put it on different terms. BFC is slower, more contemplative, intimate, introspective, and thematic. F911 urgent, sharp, and intense. It's a different kind of movie... more specifically activist... drawing more obvious and less daring conclusions... but as I said above, I can't see how it's illegitimate, and I would love to hear a good reason.

Quote from: mutinycoI think people are reacting more strongly to the content which they (and I too) agree with, than the filmmaking itself.

Here's another thing that boggles me: the ideal of separating politics and art. Can't there be simultaneous appreciation, a kind of Gesamtkunstwerk? I've heard countless people praise the skillful filmmaking of BFC but feel at least ambivalent about its politics.

Dude, you need to chill the fuck out. As I said, I agree with the film's politics. I just don't think the movie was that great. Please cool down and learn how to separate my pragmatic complaints from your overall need to rail against those attacking the film.

Quote from: mutinycoDude, you need to chill the fuck out.

:?

Any anger you're sensing is either imagined or not directed at you. I think this whole thing is fascinating, and I'm more sorting things out than arguing with you specifically. Just because I wrote a lot doesn't mean I'm mad at you. I've been civil and I haven't personally attacked you, so I'm not sure where your image of me is coming from.

Quote from: mutinycoAs I said, I agree with the film's politics.

That wasn't even relevant to our debate, though (which was completely about technique and the definition of legitimate political filmmaking), and doesn't make me less enthusiastic to have a good discussion.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanAny anger you're sensing is either imagined or not directed at you. I think this whole thing is fascinating, and I'm more sorting things out than arguing with you specifically. I've been civil and I haven't personally attacked you, so I'm not sure where your image of me is coming from.

How 'bout the fact that you keep quoting me, then going on at length to refute the quotes...

Quote from: mutinycoHow 'bout the fact that you keep quoting me, then going on at length to refute the quotes...

That's just what I do.  :-D

Well then, good sir, in the morning I shall be sober, but you...  8)

Michael Moore was on Conan O'Brien earlier tonight.  So you can check it out on the rerun tomorrow on Comedy Central or next week.

Or if you live on the West Coast like me, this can serve as a reminder to tune in tonight if you wanna.

I just got back from it, and as I predicted, it was brilliant, enraging, manipulative, etc. I loved it, and will be writing a full review discussing my minor problems with it later.

It was preaching to the choir in my case, of course, and that is my one fear -- the theater was sold out, had been sold out since early in the afternoon, and the movie was frequently met with rapturous applause from the entire theater, and that made it a great experience; but I hope other people are going to see it. Those on the opposite side of the fence will likely dismiss it, but I hope people on the middleground turn out, because they're the ones that I think it'll have the greatest effect on.

I heard only about 1% of the registered voters this year are on the middle ground; the rest of them have "already decided".  Is this true?  how can this be?

Well, I know I've certainly decided, and so have all my friends and relatives (although I still have hope that I can get my mom to change her mind).

Where this movie stands to have the biggest effect is with the unregistered voters, or those who may be registered but are too apathetic to care.

Much of the audience will be people who already know of the facts in the film or agree with the film's politics even if they don't, but plenty of people will be interested enough in this that they will see it even if they are not very politically aware.

It is good to catch people unaware.  On the news the best we get are prepackaged answers from questions approved in advance or the standard BS.

It is true, and wholly expected that the bulk of the opening-weekend crowds are going to be Moore's followers, but there are many promising emails being posted on Moore's site which mention "swing" voters and Republican-types walking out of the theater convinced...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/breakingnews/index.php?id=32

And also, what you have to realize is that one of the big problems with the left is its disorganization and lack of cohesion.  I think, if anything, the film is becoming a sort of rallying cry - a common ground for a lot of different groups, something to get behind and use as a way to get voters registered, etc.

My personal review is posted at :

http://www.splendidstuff.com/

Quote from: GhostboyIt was preaching to the choir in my case, of course, and that is my one fear -- the theater was sold out, had been sold out since early in the afternoon, and the movie was frequently met with rapturous applause from the entire theater, and that made it a great experience; but I hope other people are going to see it. Those on the opposite side of the fence will likely dismiss it, but I hope people on the middleground turn out, because they're the ones that I think it'll have the greatest effect on.

If it makes close to $30 million this weekend, which seems likely, this ISN'T just the choir. Not with those numbers. That would be like saying the opening weekend for The Passion was just Christians. By Sunday afternoon it will have already surpassed BFC, the highest grossing doc.

Here's my full review:

In my case, and in the case of many of the people who will be turning out opening weekend in droves to support it, Fahrenheit 9/11 is preaching to choir. George W. Bush and his adminstration are toxic, and their policies are uprooting the foundations of our country: this is something I believe, a position I endorse, and I think Moore has made a strong and important film that supports it. I didn't need this film to validate my opinions on these matters, but there's no doubt that it strengthened them. As someone who, over the course of this administration, has gone from apathatic to cautiously critical to fully outraged, I hope this film succeeds and changes the minds that need to be changed. As a critic, I'll review it as a film, and consider its faults, but that it has faults should be no deterent; this film needs to be seen.

The best thing Moore has going for him here, aside from winning the Palm d'Or at Cannes and gaining endless free publicity from the Disney/Miramax debacle and the conservatives who seek to suppress him, is that he's wearing his intentions on his sleeve; he made this film to get Bush out of office. It's full of propaganda, as it's been accused of being, but the fact that Moore admits as much makes a big difference; his agenda is overt, not subversive, and it's important to keep that in mind when watching the film. He brilliantly presents a portrait of a leader who practically defines the term ineffective; is it accurate? I personally think so, but I was also aware that I was being ever so slightly coerced towards an opinion that I had already formed. When Bush spends those seven indecisive minutes in the classroom on September 11, Moore's narration suggest what he might be thinking, just in case we have any doubts. Certainly, it's not hard at all to string together clips of Dubya making grammatical goofs, acting like a good old boy, being indecisive; he's an endlessly easy target.

Where Moore hits his goldmine, where he goes past propaganda, is with his illustrations of the Bush family's connections to the Bin Ladin family, and the corporate ties his administration his to Saudi Arabia. It's material you may or may not already know; regardless, seeing it here, with concrete video footage, is rather sobering. Knowing that an army of fact checkers and lawyers have pored over every bit of the footage in the film to ascertain its accuracy is nice to know, but even if they hadn't, it'd be hard to look at this footage and explain it otherwise.

These connections take up the first half of the film and set up the second half, which is more of a traditional anti-war film. We see Bush calling himself a "war president," talking about how his agenda is all about war, and then he dissapears for long periods of time. The Moore shows us the kind of footage Network Telivision won't; mutilated bodies, dead children, grieving parents, callous soldiers listening to heavy metal as they roll into battle, and, more effectively, disillusioned soldiers disgusted with the situation they've found themselves in. Equally shocking, I found, was the actual footage of the bombing, portions of which we have seen on TV -- shocking, because the footage broadcast was so severely truncated that it would be almost impossible to determine the amount of damage being done. I was reminded of how, in the old days of censorship codes, a filmmaker couldn't show the effects of a gunshot in the same shot as the gunshot itself; a similar principal seems to be in application with our media.

Through all this, we remember what we've seen in the first half of the film. The connections are clear; this war in Iraq seems to be little more than a business strategy. War supporters will point out that no mention is made of the good the war has done; to which one might ask them what good they're speaking of. The removal of Saddam is, of course, some sort of questionable accomplishment, and Moore makes one error that I think might harm his case; he shows us an pre-war Iraq that is a happy and cheerful place. The country is tantamount to some extreme level of hell now -- but it wasn't a picnic before we were there, either.

When he won the Palm d'Or, Moore was told by jury president Quentin Tarantino that he was being awarded for his filmmaking, not his politics. Indeed, the film is masterful assembly of found footage and interviews; it is never exploitative, especially in the actual coverage of the events of Septemebr 11th. Moore is famous for his humor, but it's largely subdued this time around, appropriately so. There are a few segments, one in which he inserts the faces of Bush's administration into an episode of Gunsmoke and another where he provides a hilarious role call of the Coalition Of The Willing, that might have been better left on the cutting room floor, because they're too funny, and in the case of the former have no point but to amuse. On the other hand, the scenes in which he tries to enlist the children of Congressmen or reads the Patriot Act over an ice cream truck's loudspeaker -- classic Michael Moore, as they might be called -- are not as outrageous as you might think. Like his trip to K-Mart world headquarters in Bowling For Columbine, there's nothing sardonic about them; at least in that case, he accomplished something, but his stunts here have an urgency and hopelessness to them; so much more is at stake, and the way the congressmen go out of their way to avoid him is sobering.

I have to admit that after the film was over, I felt vaguely disappointed; I wanted it to go further. But then, after thinking about it, I wondered how much further could it have gone? How many more concrete indictments could be made against our president? I think my disappointment lies with me, and that I went into this film hoping that it would contain things that would make everyone who supports Bush have second thoughts, that it would pull the wool from their eyes; of course, the problem is that his die-hard supporters have no wool in their eyes, and all those concrete accusations are things they support. The film will not sway them, because they can't be swayed. They want our country to go the way it's going; yes, war is bad, and all the terrible things Moore shows are shocking, but that's to be expected.

But if it's true that a huge number of registered voters are apathetic, and that an even greater number of American citizens are not registered at all (just like I was at the last election), then I think this film will have the intended affect; it's a highly effective cure for apathy. People who support Moore's cause will see this film for that reason; people who are set in their opposition will see it to see just what they're up against; but everyone else, who hasn't made up their mind, are the ones who need to see it the most. I honestly hope they aren't swayed by the propaganda, and that they make up their own minds; I also believe that there's more than enough factual material to convince any reasonable person that Bush needs to go.

We'll see in a few months, I suppose; but then, of course, there remains that troubling topic that Moore touches on very effetively at the beginning of the film. If Bush did in fact steal the presidency in 2000, what will stop him from doing it again? I shudder to think.

you spelled fahrenheit wrong

Yes, you see, I was testing you.

Great review, Ghostboy.

Moore could have really hammered the Patriot Act more than reading part of it from an ice cream truck speaker.

It boggles my mind that people support Bush at all.  I'm not talking about rich businessmen, I'm talking about regular people.  That they don't know a damn thing about him is disturbing.  But it is even more disturbing when people know this stuff and support him anyways.

What scumbags. Read this:

Hitler Image Used in Bush Campaign Web Ad
By JENNIFER C. KERR

WASHINGTON (AP) - Adolf Hitler's image has surfaced again in the White House race. President Bush's campaign is featuring online video of the Nazi dictator, taken down months ago from a liberal group's Web site and disavowed, in a spot that intersperses clips of speeches by Democrats John Kerry, Al Gore and Howard Dean.

Democrats want the video pulled from the site. Campaign aides said it would remain.

Republicans had criticized the group MoveOn.org in January because it briefly posted an ad contest entry that linked Hitler and Bush. It showed images of Bush with text saying, ``God told me to strike at al-Qaida,'' before turning to images of Hitler with the words, ``And then He instructed me to strike at Saddam.'' The submission ended with the words, ``Sound familiar?'' on a black and white screen.

The group later said the entry was in ``poor taste'' and pulled it from its site.

The 77-second video on the Bush-Cheney re-election site splices footage of Kerry, the presumptive nominee, and his 2004 rival Dean along with 2000 nominee Gore and film director Michael Moore. The spot calls them Kerry's ``Coalition of the Wild-eyed.'' Clips of Hitler's image are seen throughout the spot.

``The use of Adolf Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong,'' said Kerry's campaign, Mary Beth Cahill, who called on the GOP campaign to remove the Web video from its site.

``We're using the video from MoveOn.org to show our supporters the type of vitriolic rhetoric being used by the president's opponents and John Kerry's surrogates,'' said Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.

The Bush-Cheney video spot appeared on the campaign Web site Thursday and was sent electronically to 6 million supporters.

The online spot begins with clips of Gore assailing the Bush administration. ``How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison,'' Gore shouts during a public speech.

It then cuts to an image of Hitler, followed Dean, Moore and Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., all bashing Bush. There are more clips of Hitler, Gore and then Kerry, before the screen cuts to the words, ``This is not a time for pessimism and rage.'' Video images of Bush follow.

A disclaimer was added to the beginning of the Web spot on Saturday afternoon to explain that the video contains ``remarks made by and images from ads sponsored by Kerry supporters.'' The disclaimer also accuses Kerry of failing to denounce those who have compared Hitler to Bush.

This movie was pretty damn good.

It was better than BFC, even though that was good, too.

Moore's movies keep getting better and better, so I can't wait for his next one.

i couldnt believe how packed the theatre was out here in the suburbs on a saturday night, but there it was.  pretty incredible.  i went into this movie not knowing how i would feel about it though i liked Roger and Me and really liked Bowling for Columbine.  (is it possible to be a republican and a michael moore fan?)  i'm surprised he didnt reiterate some of the things from BFC about how we trained and gave money to Osama, Sadaam etc. for any of the viewers who a. didnt know or b. didnt see that film.  he may have spent a little too much time with the woman who lost her son, although i realize it was to put a human face to things, he should've gotten to a few more soldiers families perhaps as well. the movie was pretty good, although i still prefer BFC as a more effective and emotional film for me personally.  this did, make me a little sick however.

Quote from: GhostboyMoore makes one error that I think might harm his case; he shows us an pre-war Iraq that is a happy and cheerful place. The country is tantamount to some extreme level of hell now -- but it wasn't a picnic before we were there, either.

I think that's about as serious as his NRA/KKK connection. It's a subtle joke, but a joke nonetheless... I mean, with the reflection of the kite in the water and everything, how can that not be tongue-in-cheek?

Quote from: Ghostboybut his stunts here have an urgency and hopelessness to them

They certainly do, but in a strange way, I think that's the point. They simply show the distance between people and the government, which is more an artistic statement than a documentary revelation.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Ghostboybut his stunts here have an urgency and hopelessness to them

They certainly do, but in a strange way, I think that's the point. They simply show the distance between people and the government, which is more an artistic statement than a documentary revelation.

Yeah, I actually meant my comment in a good way -- I found that urgency and hopelessness made the film all the more effective. I laughed when those congressmen went out of their way to avoid them, but all in all, it was more sad than funny.

f9/11 made $21.8 million this weekend, good for #1 in the country. white chicks, the #2 movie, played on 3 times as many screens.

white chicks came in number two?  fuck, i hope that sinks quick

To read the press release go to: http://www.moviecitynews.com/notepad/2004/040627a_pr.html

i saw it yesterday and i thought it was great. moore has such an amazing editing team. but overall, the movie just pissed me off. i consider myself a liberal independent and seeing all that shit the dubya and bandar bush and others were doing, it just made me mad. but the last line really made it for me and i was in a packed theatre full of cheering people, it was great

This is the power of cinema right here.  I can't think of a film that has been more immediately socially relevant. Definitely not in the US, that's for sure.

A common criticism of Fahrenheit was that there's nothing particularly new here.  That's true enough; anyone who has read the newspapers over the last few years would have come across most of what Moore talked about in the film (though I was taken aback when I heard that tidbit about Hamid Karzai) but the reason for the film's existence is that, since a lot of people don't read the news every day, this is the best way to get it out to them.  

One of best things Moore did was to take great care not to make TOO many cheap shots at Bush.  Sure, he had his share, but he never portrayed Bush as an idiot.  The closest he came (besides that great ending) was off of Prince Bandar's reference to Osama bin Laden as a "simple, quiet guy."  All the other footage was Bush making himself look bad.  Yes, Moore picked that footage for a reason but it made Bush look more like a prick than an idiot.  The way he can't even give a reporter a straightforward answer in August 2001 about why he's not in Washington.  Having a sense of humor when dealing with the press in easy times is one thing, necessary to the job I'm sure.  Being condescending when you're the leader of the free world is another.

Just curious to know from the xixaxers in red states, what were the audience reactions where you saw it?

Quote from: Ghostboy
War supporters will point out that no mention is made of the good the war has done; to which one might ask them what good they're speaking of. The removal of Saddam is, of course, some sort of questionable accomplishment...

first off...................great job on your review..........and all the others who posted their thougts i really want to see this.........

but.

the republican in me cant help but mention that THE REMOVAL OF SADDAM IS WITHOUT QUESTION A POSTITIVE...thats like saying was it a good thing that hitler was put of power?....

I think everybody, including Michael Moore (cuz I heard him say it on Conan), can agree that it's a good thing that Saddam is gone.

Maybe Ghostboy meant that the way in which it was done is questionable.

Quote from: NEON MERCURYbut.

the republican in me cant help but mention that THE REMOVAL OF SADDAM IS WITHOUT QUESTION A POSTITIVE...thats like saying was it a good thing that hitler was put of power?....

First of all, we need to call in Max Von Sydow to exorcise the Republican in you. Yeah, I don't think anybody's going to argue that Saddam's removal was a bad thing. The question is: was it of immediate necessity? Most learned people at this point would say it wasn't.

He wasn't involved with al Qaeda. That's a fact. He didn't have weapons of mass destruction. That's a fact. Yet the Bush administration, having based its reasoning for invasion on these principles, is still claiming he was and he had.

They're liars. And over 800 Americans have died so far, including thousands injured, not the mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi casualities, because of these lies.

By the way, am I the only person who felt like Moore arranged his Iraq sequences to play very much like the Vietnam sequences in Full Metal Jacket?

Quote from: NEON MERCURYthe republican in me cant help but mention that THE REMOVAL OF SADDAM IS WITHOUT QUESTION A POSTITIVE...thats like saying was it a good thing that hitler was put of power?....

do u know anything about hitler? or are u just using him as a name like ppl use the word Einstein to mean smart without knowing a goddamn thing about him..

Quote from: Pubrick

Quote from: NEON MERCURYthe republican in me cant help but mention that THE REMOVAL OF SADDAM IS WITHOUT QUESTION A POSTITIVE...thats like saying was it a good thing that hitler was put of power?....

do u know anything about hitler? or are u just using him as a name like ppl use the word Einstein to mean smart without knowing a goddamn thing about him..

damn....whats w/ the negative vibe..... :? i thoguht we were cool w/ each other???

but um....basically, ..

both hitler and saddam:

1.] are maniac power freaks who kill innocent people
2.] we as a planet are better off w/o them

i see what your saying about the cliched einstein thing .yeah, im guilty of that a little.but still my point is right..right?..........

i know i tend to put my foot in my mouth in this issue but all of this sh*t has gotten me thinking.which is good ..im getting involved w/ my opinions.........and i realize this:

-war sucks its ugly and maybe they way the bushs/rumsfields methods are wrong/unclear/ poor planned or whatever....but i do believe that obviously, its a good thing that saddam is gone.

Quote from: NEON MERCURYbut i do believe that obviously, its a good thing that saddam is gone.

It's a good thing they invented Buncha Crunch too...

Quote from: mutinyco

Quote from: NEON MERCURYbut i do believe that obviously, its a good thing that saddam is gone.

It's a good thing they invented Buncha Crunch too...

... :)

*closes cements can of worms, tightly*



im out........

yeah it's obviously a good idea.

i just don't use the word hitler as lightly as u.

ur still not seeing the point, removing sadam was obviously good as in "about time, why havn't we done this before", and that's the trouble, it hasn't accomplished anything to justify all the disruption it has caused in the long run. it's too little too late for the beloved bush administration.

to put it another way, NEON, for sum reason u believe that Saddam posed as great a threat as hitler, that's what the comparison means whether u intended it that way or not.. so in thinking that, u admit to not even caring that the reasons for his removal were false. u would hav been happy with "he's a bad guy and kills ppl". well, man, do u think that there aren't any worse ppl in the world, in positions of power comparable to sadam? is that what u really believe?

there's two arguments going on in america and the whole world, and unfortunately i think the tone was set for it in the aftermath of september 11.. the argument made by reasonable adults and the argument made my children. they are irreconcilable and the core of the debate, and the reason a George Bush re-election is still an actual possibility.

may God hav mercy on our souls.

Quotethey are irreconcilable and the core of the debate, and the reason a George Bush re-election is still an actual possibility.

may God hav mercy on our souls.

Well put.

I was holding out a pathetic sliver of hope that this film might galvanize the swing vote into voting against this terrorist in the White House.  After seeing this film, I know it won't.  At best, this film is entertaining and laugh-out-loud funny at times.  At worst, it only stokes the Bush haters' fire.  And I mean that in the best possible way.  In a nutshell, Moore has managed to shoot himself in the foot with this one.  I like what GNN had to say: "In an era where authentic journalism and critical analysis have been sacrificed for ambulance chasing and hyperbole, Michael Moore has basically fallen into the same trap. Even worse, instead of attempting to transform the political landscape by appealing to a broader psychographic audience, Moore has simply catered to and played off the angry left, driving his spear further into the wound of the American collective consciousness.


And that is no way to heal a painful rift. If that was ever the point."

Where is Errol Morris when you need him?

http://www.davisdvd.com/news/daily_news.html


With Michael Moore's buzzworthy Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary finally hitting over 900 screens this weekend, talk is now shifting to the inevitable DVD release. Currently, the film is still without a proper home video distributor, although Lions Gate, which is sharing theatrical distribution with IFC Films, is rumored to be the logical choice. By Moore's mandate, however, the DVD must be released in September. "We want to get it out before the (presidential) election," said Michael Moore during a recent press stop for the film. "We hope the film and DVD will have a significant role in removing Bush from office." Moore's production company, Dog Eat Dog Films, has already produced many of the bonus features. The DVD is said to include additional footage and updates not in the current theatrical edit, a commentary track, man-in-the-street interviews conducted in 30 countries and more to be announced.





Coffeebeetle, Errol Morris usually deals with larger issues by focusing on one person or a handful of persons in a very intimate style, but I too was thinking that Morris could make a great documentary on this subject.

Quote from: NEON MERCURYboth hitler and saddam:

1.] are maniac power freaks who kill innocent people
2.] we as a planet are better off w/o them

That list is long, my friend, and most modern American presidents are on it...

Quote from: NEON MERCURYwar sucks its ugly and maybe they way the bushs/rumsfields methods are wrong/unclear/ poor planned or whatever....but i do believe that obviously, its a good thing that saddam is gone.

The only problem is... the way that it happens means everything.

Quote from: coffeebeetle"In an era where authentic journalism and critical analysis have been sacrificed for ambulance chasing and hyperbole, Michael Moore has basically fallen into the same trap."

Please explain how (1) the film is not analytical and (2) the film's original footage (especially the Iraq stuff) is not authentic journalism.

Quote from: abuck1220f9/11 made $21.8 million this weekend, good for #1 in the country. white chicks, the #2 movie, played on 3 times as many screens.

More detail...

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes $21.8 million[/b]
And beats Bowling For Columbine total

LOS ANGELES—Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 took in a whopping $21.8 million in North America over its first three days, becoming the first documentary to debut as Hollywood's top weekend film.

If yesterday's estimates hold when final numbers are released today, Fahrenheit 9/11 would set a record in a single weekend as the top-grossing documentary, outside of concert films and movies made for huge-screen IMAX theatres.

Adding the film's haul at two New York City theatres, where it opened Wednesday, two days earlier than the rest of North America, boosted Fahrenheit 9/11 to $21.96 million (U.S.).

Bowling For Columbine, Moore's 2002 Academy Award-winning documentary, previously held the documentary record with a final North American total of $21.6 million. Canadians accounted for 23 per cent of that total.

Alright. I saw this on Sunday.

My two cents:

It's a good film, but not a great or Oscar worthy film.

You can definetly tell it was not given the time and attention to detail that Bowling for Columbine was. I liked an aweful lot about this film but I have to admit it started to drag once Moore started getting into the "emotional" side of the soldiers and their families who have lost love ones. I can understand how terrible it must be to lose a loved one, but honestly, could he not have done the mother segment in 10 minutes instead of 30?

I felt like the order of things was a little messed up too. The recruiters at Congress stuff would have made an excellent opening bit to hook the audience. Or, I feel like the Senetor saying, "We don't read most of the stuff that we pass".. Something along those lines.

It just didn't flow right for me. The pieces are there, and I'm almost 100% sure if the election was in 2005, this entire film would be totally different. Not just with added content, but I'm talking a totally different structure. I think he wanted to get this thing out there.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: NEON MERCURYboth hitler and saddam:

1.] are maniac power freaks who kill innocent people
2.] we as a planet are better off w/o them

That list is long, my friend, and most modern American presidents are on it...

Quote from: NEON MERCURYwar sucks its ugly and maybe they way the bushs/rumsfields methods are wrong/unclear/ poor planned or whatever....but i do believe that obviously, its a good thing that saddam is gone.

The only problem is... the way that it happens means everything.

Quote from: coffeebeetle"In an era where authentic journalism and critical analysis have been sacrificed for ambulance chasing and hyperbole, Michael Moore has basically fallen into the same trap."

Please explain how (1) the film is not analytical and (2) the film's original footage (especially the Iraq stuff) is not authentic journalism.

1) The film isn't analytical enough in my opinion because there are some important "facts" that are skewered: for instance, when the Taliban visited Texas, Clinton authorized this visit and Bush never actually met with the creeps.  However, Moore's presentation leads you to believe that Bush met directly with them.  To me, that's not right.  It's sneaky of Moore.  Another example is Richard Clarke: when you have Clarke, who wrote a book damning to the Administration, saying Moore is so far off (i.e. Clarke authorized the pickup of Saudis in the U.S. post-9-11, NOT Bush) the threads that hold this film together start to come apart and the film loses its value as a valid criticism of the Administration.

2) You mention Iraq footage.  The footage of disillusioned soldiers and grieving Lipscomb was FANTASTIC.  Because you simply can't argue with stuff like that.  These aspects were the strongest parts of the film.  It's also irrefutable to say that Bush's cowboy mentality and the Administration's neo-con wet dreams led us into that.  

Now let me end by saying I am a HUGE Bush hater.  I also think that this film is based on facts, however the way Moore puts them together, and skewers them to force the viewer to see his (Moore's) conclusions unsettles me.  I wanted to love this film soooo much.  But I can't.  Because I need something alot less distorted.  Thanks.

Quote from: coffeebeetlethere are some important "facts" that are skewered: for instance, when the Taliban visited Texas, Clinton authorized this visit and Bush never actually met with the creeps.  However, Moore's presentation leads you to believe that Bush met directly with them.  To me, that's not right.  It's sneaky of Moore.

Perhaps Bush didn't meet with them in his official capacity as Governor of Texas (which, of course, Moore doesn't say), but the Taliban met with Unocal, a company the Bush family is endlessly connected with. I think it's perfectly fair to suggest there might have been a relationship between the Taliban and the Bush people in Texas.

Quote from: coffeebeetleAnother example is Richard Clarke: when you have Clarke, who wrote a book damning to the Administration, saying Moore is so far off (i.e. Clarke authorized the pickup of Saudis in the U.S. post-9-11, NOT Bush) the threads that hold this film together start to come apart and the film loses its value as a valid criticism of the Administration

It is a mistake for Moore to draw such a black and white picture of Clarke, then... But has Clarke explained why it happened? It's not exactly a distortion to suggest that the Bush Administration orchestrated and authorized the Saudi pickup... Clarke was part of the Bush Administration, and I really doubt the whole thing was his idea.

Quote from: Pubrickyeah it's obviously a good idea.

i just don't use the word hitler as lightly as u.

ur still not seeing the point, removing sadam was obviously good as in "about time, why havn't we done this before", and that's the trouble, it hasn't accomplished anything to justify all the disruption it has caused in the long run. it's too little too late for the beloved bush administration.

to put it another way, NEON, for sum reason u believe that Saddam posed as great a threat as hitler, that's what the comparison means whether u intended it that way or not.. so in thinking that, u admit to not even caring that the reasons for his removal were false. u would hav been happy with "he's a bad guy and kills ppl". well, man, do u think that there aren't any worse ppl in the world, in positions of power comparable to sadam? is that what u really believe?

there's two arguments going on in america and the whole world, and unfortunately i think the tone was set for it in the aftermath of september 11.. the argument made by reasonable adults and the argument made my children. they are irreconcilable and the core of the debate, and the reason a George Bush re-election is still an actual possibility.

may God hav mercy on our souls.

.............. :) .............. :idea: ...............i  see now what your saying..........
thanks...........

QuoteClarke was part of the Bush Administration, and I really doubt the whole thing was his idea.

From what I've read, Bush didn't directly order the emergency evacuation.

Jeremy, I just would've liked this film to not have so many loose ends.  Perhaps I'm asking for too much (or maybe I'm just asking for a documentary in the true sense of the word--i.e. without the director's narration, using cold hard facts and not leaving the information that is presented to mere conjecture).  I'll admit, I am obsessive about some things.  This just happens to be one of them. :)

I think you are dead on right.

The film qualifies as a documentary but I feel like it falls short in a lot of areas. It starts going down a road and then never really completes it.

See, in Bowling for Columbine, somebody would raise an objection why we are so violent. Michael Moore would say, "Ok, let's explore that then", and he'd spend 10-20 minutes showing us why it's both true and untrue. The film was far more accomplished than 9/11 is.

It did feel really sloppy. I honestly believe MM wanted this out there before the election and we'd be looking at a far more detailed and accomplished look at George Bush had he had another year to work on this.

Haven't had a chance to see it yet, but if that's the case, if this appears to be sloppy filmmaking, then why was it honored for its filmmaking at Cannes?  Just curious.

I agree that it's not as exhaustive and well planned as BFC, but I wouldn't really call it sloppy. Rushed, maybe, which it certainly was. But its filmmaking -- its orchestration of found footage and Moore's own journalism -- is pretty excellent.

I guess I should say, though, that, on the merits of its filmmaking, I wouldn't have given it the Palm d'Or. It was certainly the most important film at Cannes, but I'm sure there were plenty of other films that were, technically, better.

Quote from: ono.bot.opoeiaHaven't had a chance to see it yet, but if that's the case, if this appears to be sloppy filmmaking, then why was it honored for its filmmaking at Cannes?  Just curious.

Ono, it's a great film, but imo for all the wrong reasons.  It's superb entertainment.  I laughed, I got a little teary-eyed, etc.  Since you haven't seen it, I won't give away parts.  But as far as documentaries go, wasn't as strong as it could have been.

Documentaries aren't meant to serve as objective viewpoints, though. They present an opinion and often manipulate as much as any fictional story, probably moreso since what the filmmaker shows is meant to be 'true'. All I mean to say is documentaries serve the same purpose as any ol' fictional movie; they aren't newspapers. So with this in mind Fahrenheit is one of the best documentaries I've seen--it convinces me to agree with Moore and makes me feel as though what he shows us is real.

Un-Moored from Reality: Fahrenheit 9/11 connects dots that aren't there.
Source: Weekly Standard

CONSIDERING THAT I'm writing this from inside the bunker of what many regard as the Alliance of Neocon Warmongers, it bears mentioning that Michael Moore and I have one surprising trait in common: We both believe that the war in Iraq was ill-advised, ill-planned, and ill-executed, an apparent failure bordering on unmitigated disaster, that was never in our best national interest. Around our office over the last two years, I've made these arguments to colleagues, open-minded types who, after they put me through my water-boarding/naked pyramid sessions, say they'll take it under advisement. And I make the disclosure now so that readers will not be confused. I do not trash Fahrenheit 9/11 because it's a piece of antiwar propaganda. I trash Fahrenheit 9/11 because it's an offal-laden piece of junk.

It is proof, as if we need more, that Moore doesn't make art, he makes fudge. Since fact-checking his work has become a near full-time cottage industry, it is worth remembering that in his debut film Roger & Me, his indictment of heartless General Motors, he was caught fudging evictions, showing people getting bounced onto the street who'd never been GM workers. In 2002's antigun screed, Bowling for Columbine, he fudged his tear-jerking closer. While hectoring Alzheimer's-ravaged NRA mascot Charlton Heston, he related the heart-tugging tale of a mother whose 6-year-old son, largely unsupervised because of oppressive welfare-to-work laws, found a gun in her house and killed one of his classmates. Moore failed to mention that the family member Mom entrusted him  
to was running a crackhouse out of her home, that the gun had been left on a mattress, and that she'd admitted beating another son while sitting on him after duct-taping his hands, feet, and mouth. Not exactly a model of responsible parenting, gun ownership, or filmmaking.

As has become my custom at Moore screenings, I began by scratching hash marks in my notebook, counting his conspiracy theories. Not only does this train the mind, but it distracts me from laughing inappropriately and disturbing fellow filmgoers. But in Fahrenheit 9/11, I quickly abandoned counting for cackling. By the time the opening credits rolled, Moore had already explained how George W. Bush rigged the 2000 election by stealing votes from black people, as well as fallen back on his shopworn class-war claptrap to imply that Bush was out of touch with the common folk, since on September 10, 2001, he "went to sleep that night in a bed made with fine French linens." (The next day's terror victims doubtless slept on burlap.)

The intro credits are accompanied by creepy acoustic guitar runs--third-world atrocity music--which play under a montage of our leaders/war criminals sinisterly readying themselves for television appearances. There's Dick Cheney getting his rake-over fluffed. There's Tom Ridge diabolically laughing. There's Paul Wolfowitz smoothing a cowlick with spittle. They smile. They have make-up applied before going on TV. Bastards!

From there, Moore offers a full hour's worth of Bush-centric conspiracies so seemingly random, disjointed, and pointless that one's ticket stub should come with a flow-chart and a decoder ring. In my line of work, when you hear this strain of rhetoric, it's usually from a man in a sandwich board touting the apocalypse or Mumia's innocence, pushing stacks of literature at you while standing on the wrong side of a police cordon. It doesn't typically come from someone whose premiere is attended by half of respectable Democratic Washington, and whose film won the coveted Palme d'Or prize at Cannes.


Moore never passes up a chance to make Bush look like a lightweight, smirking chimp. In fairness, Bush provides more than enough source material. There's Bush, to the strains of the Go-Go's "Vacation," casting fishing lines and speeding away in golf carts, with Moore informing us that the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation. There's Bush in a grade school classroom photo op, sitting shifty-eyed and paralyzed for a full seven minutes after being told the second plane smacked into the World Trade Center, while a teacher reads My Pet Goat. (As a friend of mine says, "Maybe he just wanted to see how it ended.")

Moore uses Bush's momentary inaction as a device to ask what he was thinking, which, to paraphrase Moore's answer, was how to cover his tracks. This allows us passage into the paranoid labyrinth of Moore's mind, which is illustrated by news footage and a string of experts (Moore spends less time physically on screen than in any of his other films, a fact which recommends it, comparatively speaking). He never fabricates out of whole cloth. Rather, Moore the filmmaker takes a perfectly reasonable proposition (our government generally, and the Bush family specifically, have been too solicitous of the Saudis), while Moore the fudgemaker throws entire trays at the wall, never overtly making allegations that amount to anything, but crossing his fingers that some of it sticks.

The insinuation is that Bush had to keep us scared, with color-coded alerts and  
a citizen-terrorizing Patriot Act, to distract the country from his tangle of conflicts of interests and to build sentiment for invading Iraq. Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while Bush was governor, over a possible pipeline deal with Unocal. But Moore doesn't say that they never actually met with Bush or that the deal went bust in 1998 and had been supported by the Clinton administration.

Moore mentions that Bush's old National Guard buddy and personal friend James Bath had become the money manager for the bin Laden family, saying, "James Bath himself in turn invested in George W. Bush." The implication is that Bath invested the bin Laden family's money in Bush's failed energy company, Arbusto. He doesn't mention that Bath has said that he had invested his own money, not the bin Ladens', in Bush's company.

The family members who had disowned Osama were mainstays of American business, to the point that they were members of the nefarious Carlyle Group, a fact Moore naturally mentions, along with the fact that George's daddy was a member, too. One of the Carlyle Group's investments was United Defense, maker of Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Moore says September 11 "guaranteed that United Defense was going to have a very good year." See it all coming together? Moore tells us that when Carlyle took United Defense public, they made a one-day profit of $237 million, but under all the public scrutiny, the bin Laden family eventually had to withdraw (Moore doesn't tell us that they withdrew before the public offering, not after it).

At their own request, the bin Laden family was quickly shuttled away after 9/11, back to Saudi Arabia. Moore finds it suspicious, as well he should. Who would be stupid enough to let that happen, without working them over for a good couple of weeks? Actually, according to a May interview he gave to The Hill, it was Richard Clarke, Bush's former counterterrorism adviser and the new patron saint of Bush-bashers. Moore makes use of him in the film, though he manages not to mention Clarke's role in the departure of the bin Ladens.

Here, if we're going to play connect-the-dots, a few questions are in order. For starters, are we really supposed to believe that 9/11 and the ensuing wars were a collaborative profiteering scheme between the bin Ladens, the Bushes, and defense contractors? Furthermore, will Moore's DVD director's cut elucidate Bush ties to the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, and the Freemasons? Who knows? Who cares? Moore doesn't seem to, as he speedily moves on, making another tray of fudge.

When Moore takes us to Iraq, on the eve of war, he shows placid scenes of an untroubled land on the brink of imperial annihilation. With all the leisurely strolling and kite-flying, it is unclear if Iraqis are living under a murderous dictatorship or in a Valtrex commercial. In Moore's telling of the invasion, the shock-and-awe is less high-value-target/smart-bombing, more Dresden/Hiroshima. According to the footage that ensues, our pilots seem to have hit nothing but women and children. If Moore's documentarian gig were to fall through, he could easily seek employment as an Al Jazeera cameraman.

This is, it nearly goes without saying, his downfall as a storyteller. In his unctuous morality tales, everyone is assigned black and white hats. The white hats mainly belong to the oppressed people of Iraq, subject to our soldiers' midnight raids under the jackboot of occupation, and to other victims of the administration, such as the poor, underemployed people of Flint, Michigan (Moore's obsessively referenced hometown), who serve as helpless recruiting chum for Bush's killing machine.

The black hats (administration types) seem to be motivated solely by world domination and the desire to steer no-bid contracts to Halliburton. There is no allowance for moral ambiguity, or what would've been even more interesting, misguided moral clarity--the possibility that Bush made a bad judgment call, but did so for the right reasons (security concerns, the elimination of a brutal despot, and the liberation of his people).

One of this film's only pure moments occurs when Moore spends time with the mother of an American soldier who died in Karbala. The mother is a conservative Democrat from a family with a long military history. She used to rage at war protestors, but since losing her son, she seethes at the administration who sent him to his death, crying almost animally, "I want him to be alive . . . and I can't make him alive." (But even this is sullied by Moore's smarmy, gratuitous insistence to her that "yeah, it's a great country," an obvious inoculation against charges that he hates America.)

Critics have accused Moore of milking her grief until it moos. But on this, he deserves a pass. Anyone wishing to discuss war, either for or against, should also be prepared to seriously consider its tolls, especially the human ones. Moore being Moore, however, steps on his most effective material by following it with yet another cheap stunt: ambushing congressmen to ask if they will enlist their children to go to Iraq, as if anyone can. He finds no takers, then says he can't blame them, since who would want to give up their child? Nobody, of course. Not the parents of soldiers in Iraq, nor the parents of those who died at Normandy. But few would argue that World War II wasn't a war worth fighting.

Which is not to say Iraq is in the same class. And it is why real questions should be continuously asked, and skepticism applied. The kind of skepticism that forces leaders to account for whether they've taken the right course of action. Not the crank, grab bag of stitched-together conspiracies that encourages Moore's political opponents to be reflexively dismissive--and causes the leftish reviewer sitting next to me to say, "He infuriates me because he makes my arguments badly."

There is plenty of grist for skeptics of the war to argue that the chances of a shiny, happy democracy's flowering in Iraq reside somewhere between slim and nil. But those are still better odds than the ones on Moore's someday making an intellectually honest film.

Get a load of this...

http://imdb.com/title/tt0361596/board/nest/9709073

LOL!

QuoteThey have make-up applied before going on TV. Bastards!

It's amazing how he and others don't understand this scene. It isn't supposed to be groundbreaking journalism... it's an artistic statement. And I think it was the most beautiful thing in the movie.

i saw this it was good.....
bush is a funny guy......... :-D

but seriously it worked for me.........whatever its true and whatever was fake that didnt bother me ..this film was a work of ART......the part that hit me the most was when moore points out that the soldiers are mostly from the middle/lower class and all they ask was if needed to make sure its worthy cause.......

and the best bush moment was when he was on the golf course and he starts talking about how we are going to stop terrorism and then he quickly cuts to saying "take a look at this drive"..... :rofl:

America is a crazy place...just look at our presidents/candidates......you got pratical joker bush, womanizing frat boy clinton, straightlaced censoring prick gore.and now kerry... :roll: ..ross perot, we need you now....

wow, I fuckin' loved this movie.  Easily best movie I've seen this year (sorry spotless mind).  I had huge expectations for this doc, and it surpassed them all.  I felt a huge number of emotions during and it also made me think about my own political convictions.  I'm rather liberal but I started thinking I should do something more productive with my political stance rather than just arguing with some of my conservative friends.

I was impressed & surprised with the number of elderly viewers at the screening I attended.

Quote from: SHAFTRI was impressed & surprised with the number of elderly viewers at the screening I attended.

Really? I saw it at a Thursday midnight showing and I swear there was no one there over 25.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: SHAFTRI was impressed & surprised with the number of elderly viewers at the screening I attended.

Really? I saw it at a Thursday midnight showing and I swear there was no one there over 25.

I saw quite a few older men and women.

it was like Bingo night when i went

Does anybody have a soundtrack listing of songs that played in the film?

or just that unofficial theme song for the film--the one with the wailing electric guitar in the trailer?

The trailer music is...

"I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years After

http://www.moorewatch.com

:roll:

Their abrasive, right-wing ignorance sickens me.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.bham.rr.com%2Fstaplegunpress%2Fimages%2Fvomit.jpg&hash=934bf29fb048e2ae2f98341e6dc445a096357203)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.riggedproductions.com%2Fstickman%2Ffahrenheit_911.jpg&hash=438728b964e32feda72da5ab77319b6da5227fba)

Quote from: coffeebeetleTheir abrasive, right-wing ignorance sickens me.

But have you seen the inspirational t-shirts?

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shopmetrospy.com%2Fgraphics%2FProduct_92_PrSpare2.jpg&hash=e34823c4e4b390330fa3f3a0a3763bb9129ccc6a)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shopmetrospy.com%2Fgraphics%2FProduct_4_PrSpare2.gif&hash=d5bdcf27ec2546d0f57badf38a1e2a104d672bcd)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shopmetrospy.com%2Fgraphics%2FProduct_140_PrSpare2.jpg&hash=6500fd2e2be8324ef0dc45db1a079740ac84120c)

Why is a UFO abducting Condoleeza Rice?

Sweet Lord!

That's insane.

Oh God.....

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/bee/bee_9002.html

make you all feel better!

Camelot May Not Return for Disney

Disney seemed certain to take another drubbing at the box office this weekend as returns for its Wednesday premiere of King Arthur came in below expectations. (Daily Variety described the opening as "not stellar.") The film grossed $4.8 million, less than half the $10.04 million grossed by Spider-Man 2, which celebrated its eighth day in release by crossing the $200 million mark ($202,115,000), getting there faster than any film in history. The $130-million film, which is playing on 3,000 screens earned less than the $6-million Fahrenheit 9/11, which Disney rejected, earned in its opening on fewer than 900 screens. Indeed, on a per-theater basis Wednesday King Arthur and Fahrenheit took in about the same amount of money. Fahrenheit's gross now stands at $66.6 million.

The IRONY!!!!

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: coffeebeetleTheir abrasive, right-wing ignorance sickens me.

But have you seen the inspirational t-shirts?

the first one sucks...reminds me of a crude sci-fi low budget film....

the second one is actaully quite classy...i like the circle logo..bu tthe "pro-war" needs tyo be a little smaller.......i would actaully wear that one ...

the last one screams white trash....this is evident by that skeleton and flame motif thaty you will notice on most metal bands like megadeth and other white trash metal......if i was going to see slayer, kid rock, or a skid row reunion tour i would fit in nicely wearing this shirt.....

but "freedom isnt free" and "peace isn t pretty" is true.........in all cases..

lastly, the "its a dirty job" trivializes the above and is in bad taste.......
.

Quote from: NEON MERCURYbut "freedom isnt free" and "peace isn t pretty" is true.........in all cases..

You may be surprised that I disagree.

Those bumper sticker simplifications are completely shielding what they really mean, which is, of course, "the path to freedom isn't free" and "the path to peace isn't peaceful." We can argue about those, but it's a logical certainty that freedom is free and peace is peaceful.

Consciously delaying "freedom" and "peace" by actively engaging in their opposites, authoritarianism and war, is not only counterintuitive and illogical but disagrees with almost everything that has happened in the history of the world. Only fighting against authoritarianism yeilds freedom. Only refraining from war yeilds peace.

This is proven by the War on Terrorism, which has become the most successful terrorist recruitment tool in recent history.

World War 1 was called "the war to end all wars."

http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen07052004.html

There's a really good article for reading

Quote from: NEON MERCURYbut "freedom isnt free" and "peace isn t pretty" is true.........in all cases..

reminds me of a book i read....

edit: sorry for the edit again, but towards the link slueth provided....i think this guy is reading a little too much into the racism of the film.  i didn't find anything wrong with his 'role call'.  it simply showed that basically the 'colation of the willing' were simply names and not artillary or force.  it was a joke really.  that's what i think, anyway.
and the part about white people being questioned about being terrorists...i just assumed it was a way to show how far they would go to use the 'patriot act' as a way to take away a little freedom from us.  they weren't just using it on people who were from the region of the terrorists, but from people who were born in this country; in short, it's not really where you're from, but what you believe or don't believe in.  i think it was a good point.  there may be a little racism in there (maybe?), but i don't find it to be a way to denounce the whole film.  that guy is wack, really.

The Coalition of the Willing was not exactly a powerhouse, aside from Great Britain.  Could Palau and Iceland really do anything for us?

Moore certainly could have included a segment on Middle Easterners and South Asians being unfairly questioned or detained, but the point of the segment he included was that even someone who in passing says something derogatory about the government could be trailed.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: NEON MERCURYbut "freedom isnt free" and "peace isn t pretty" is true.........in all cases..

You may be surprised that I disagree.


This is proven by the War on Terrorism, which has become the most successful terrorist recruitment tool in recent history.

Actually, it is easier to blame us for everything, but I would put more blame of terrorist recruitment on the radical islamic sects. Anyone, it's good to know have a CIA specialist on here that knows the numbers of terrorists in the world. Makes me feel safer next time I go in to a movie theatre.  :lol:

Quote from: classical gasbut i don't find it to be a way to denounce the whole film.  that guy is wack, really.

I don't find that singling out the race-portion is a way to denounce the whole article, etc etc

yeah, i know....i didn't finish it.  and my response was rushed and probably didn't make much sense.

Quote from: Reformed WeirdoActually, it is easier to blame us for everything

How is blaming "us" easier than blaming "them"? It's pretty easy to do both. They're both equally simplistic. I'm not seeing your scale of difficulty here.

And of course I didn't "blame us for everything." First of all, I don't know why any one would assign the word "us" to an imperial regime as distant and unelected as the Bush administration. Secondly, the relationship between young Middle Eastern men and terrorism recruitment can not be simplified into blaming either "them" or "us"... anti-American terrorism would not exist without fanatical religion or the U.S.'s cowboy foreign policy.

More specifically, the recent rise in terrorism (especially in Iraq) seems to have a more than coincidental connection to the War on Terrorism and the conquest in Iraq.

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don't think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn't do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn't he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him "relaxing at Camp David" shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say "shows," even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won't recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that's what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR's collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore's film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.

But it won't because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term "civilian casualty" had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn't now, either. I'll just say that the "insurgent" side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that's not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam's depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Vienna* and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose "operation" murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist "security" headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as "threatening," even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition's presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."

The same "let's have it both ways" opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been "fear" if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic "security" staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can't tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don't have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn't enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So—he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who's counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other's pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq's recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film's "theory." Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.

I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it's the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won't dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I'll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can "send" their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it's a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He'll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.

Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting "Let's roll," rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only "overseas" or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.

Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (...), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States ...

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

Correction, June 22, 2004: This piece originally referred to terrorist attacks by Abu Nidal's group on the Munich and Rome airports. The 1985 attacks occurred at the Rome and Vienna airports. (Return to the corrected sentence.)

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book, Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship, is out in paperback.

christopher hitchens is fat.

...not to mention fat, stupid and white.

Why hasn't the N. Korean WMD angle ever been brought up until this article?

EDIT: Check this out: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/01/1070127352268.html?oneclick=true

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman aka Michael MooreFirst of all, I don't know why any one would assign the word "us" to an imperial regime as distant and unelected as the Bush administration.

Quote from: Chest Rockwell

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman aka Michael MooreFirst of all, I don't know why any one would assign the word "us" to an imperial regime as distant and unelected as the Bush administration.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.aol.com%2Fcrze4keanu%2Fpict40.jpg&hash=ac978c73b07c1c99402c562e25dd2edb74fcdf1c)

Reacting to the shit hitting the fan...

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (http://www.outfoxed.org/)

Quote from: coffeebeetle

Quote from: Chest Rockwell

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman aka Michael MooreFirst of all, I don't know why any one would assign the word "us" to an imperial regime as distant and unelected as the Bush administration.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.aol.com%2Fcrze4keanu%2Fpict40.jpg&hash=ac978c73b07c1c99402c562e25dd2edb74fcdf1c)

Reacting to the shit hitting the fan...

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.xpuser.net%2Fuploads%2Fpost-19-1063871985.jpg&hash=2faaac3222e83cb6d30b0dd0d21a0712ae249654)

My reaction to the shit hitting the fan...

Sweet Lord!  Here comes that burrito.

I've already ordered my copy of Outfoxed.  Can't wait.

Once you see Outfoxed do make sure to give us your opinion. I was thinking of buying it.

New opinions after a second viewing...

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThe opening election stuff was very good, if a little fast (the chronology and political details could be much more precise and less simplifying, though they're not misleading).

It bothered me much less this time... I realized that it's simplified, but the farthest thing from misleading. It feels a little suspicious just because he draws a bunch of conclusions at machine-gun pace. You have to look elsewhere for the meat of the evidence, which is true about much of this movie.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThis is one of the most emotionally powerful movies I've seen. And I don't mean emotional like Bowling For Columbine... I mean emotional on a larger scale and scope.

It had much less emotion for me this time, though the 9/11 reaction scene still got me. I realized how much the atmosphere contributed to the experience the first time. It was a Thursday midnight showing, and we all felt like we were the first people to see the movie. I could feel the energy of the packed auditorium throughout the show... it was electrifying. It's not as exciting seeing it a few weeks after opening night at a matinee with 5 other people in the auditorium.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanMy only significant complaint about the movie: Michael Moore. He almost let the material and the editing completely do the work for him, but he too often states the obvious and opines when it's completely unecessary. The worst thing about it, really, is how he says it. His tone of voice can be obnoxious and distracting... either faky (when he's concerned) or sarcastic (when he's pissed off). This is a minor complaint, and I realize that (A) the production value of his narration suffered because the movie was finished at the last minute and (B) these obnoxious moments only happen two or three times throughout the movie.

I'm positive now that this is only problem with the movie. But it's a big one. This time I was annoyed with it from the first frame. It's not really what he says, it's how he says it and when he says it. The sarcasm is so incredibly pointless and, for me, alienating. I have to try to look past it as a production flaw (which it definitely is). There are, however, moments when I think one of his whiny intonations is unecessay, and it turns out to be a pretty good introduction of the next clip.

I say the narration annoyance is the only problem because I'm now convinced that there are no intentionally misleading statements in the movie. After reading all the negative reviews, I was surprised when the quoted statements appeared in the movie... they're all at least twice as expansive as the skeptics have accused. Everything is explained clearly and fully. It moves at such a deliberate pace, though, that I can see the impulse to pick 4 words out of a 12-word sentence. But it's not like he mumbles the details like fine print in a radio commercial.

DVD News
Source: DVDAnswers.com
Title: Fahrenheit 9/11
Starring: N/A (Documentary)
Released: 5th October 2004
SRP: Price TBC

Further Details

Columbia Tristar Home Entertainment has today announced plans to release the recent Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 9/11 this October. The controversial documentary, looks at the events following on from September 11th, and how the Bush Administration apparently used the tragic event to push its agenda. The disc will be available to own in shops from the 5th October this year. The retail price has yet to be confirmed. I'm afraid that we have no details on the extra material yet either, although Michael Moore has stated that he plans to include many bonus features that he shot personally, as well as plenty of news footage and other such materials. As soon as we have further details on this one, we'll let you know.

Ronstandt causes ruckus in Vegas
Source: Los Angeles Times

Linda Ronstandt not only got booed, she also got the boot after lauding filmmaker Michael Moore and his "Fahrenheit 9/11" during a performance at the Aladdin hotel-casino in Las Vegas.

Before singing "Desperado" for an encore Saturday night, the 58-year-old singer called Moore a "great American patriot" and "someone who is spreading the truth." She also encouraged everybody to see the documentary about President Bush.

Ronstandt's comments drew loud boos and some of the 4,500 people in attendance stormed out of the theater. People also tore down concert posters and tossed cocktails into the air.

"It was a very ugly scene," Aladdin President Bill Timmins said later. "She praised him and all of a sudden all bedlam broke loose."

Timmins, who was watching the show, decided Ronstandt had to go -- for good. Timmins said he didn't allow Ronstandt back in her luxury suite and she was escorted off the property. She had been booked for only one show.

Representatives for Ronstandt, who plays the Greek Theater tonight, declined comment Monday.

I feel brainwashed after watching this film....But I guess that's a good thing?  :|

'Fahrenheit' tops $100 million

As "Fahrenheit 9/11" crossed the $100 million mark this weekend, a first for a feature-length, theatrically released documentary, Michael Moore noted that a new benchmark has thus been set for nonfiction films. "Before, you couldn't convince exhibitors that there was an audience for nonfiction films," the Oscar-winning director said. "Now the challenge is on myself and other filmmakers to continue making things for this audience." Moore couldn't be happier about the performance of the film, distributed by Lions Gate, IFC Films and Harvey and Bob Weinstein's Fellowship Adventure Group. As part of his and the film's campaign to defeat President Bush's re-election, Moore said he will attend the Democratic Convention today at the invitation of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Lions Gate is hoping to keep his film in theaters until the November election.

Got this email this morning from the Alamo:

Fahrenheit 9/11 in Bush's Backyard (http://www.drafthouse.com/online_tix/show_details.asp?show_id=2129)

Fahrenheit 9/11
Hosted by Michael Moore


It seems certain "political forces" have conspired to keep Michael Moore's controversial film 'Fahrenheit 9/11' from screening in the Crawford, Texas area (home of George W. Bush) – can you believe it?! According to an article in the Austin American-Statesman, sparked by an editorial in the Waco Tribune, local residents who found this appalling began a campaign to correct this several weeks ago. Rallying around the Crawford Peace House they contacted Moore directly for some help. Being the gauntlet-throwing kinda guy he is, Moore apparently took a quick liking to the idea. He called Lions Gate. Last week Lions Gate contacted us. And just like that you've got your self an on-the-fly addition to our Rolling Roadshow calendar!

Michael Moore is flying in to host this event and has personally invited the President to attend via an open letter  (http://michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=112)posted to his website!

please bring a battery powered Boom Box, Radio Walkman, or the like!! We think there is a strong possibility that the-powers-that-be will attempt to force us to stop the screening by invoking the Noise Ordinance. Our back-up plan will be to completely shut down the PA system and continue the film with the audio broadcasting from a low-powered FM transmitter

pfft.  drama queens.

Quote from: Chest RockwellOnce you see Outfoxed do make sure to give us your opinion. I was thinking of buying it.

The editing was average. Every single graphic was obnoxious and distracting. There's one scene with a vertical wipe that slides across this guy's face to avoid a jump cut... I had no idea what it was at first... some kind of wobbly public access level iMovie effect. And the "call to action" thing at the end is just bizarre and unecessary. But the material is so good that I don't really care. To see this irrefutable deconstruction of the Fox propaganda model is incredibly satisfying and sickening.

Agreed.  Unless you watched Fox every day for an extended period of time, you'd have no idea just how warped their programming really is.  This film put all of this in focus and forced you to see with your own eyes.  The editing was, as JB said, amateurish (that's actually being too kind) but the interviews were EXTREMELY insightful.

http://www.dvdanswers.com/index.php?r=0&s=1&c=4510&n=1&burl=

Columbia has officially announced Fahrenheit 9/11 which is the latest film from Michael Moore. The new documentary looks at the events following on from September 11th, and how the Bush Administration apparently used the tragic event to push its agenda. The disc will be available to own in shops from the 5th October this year, priced at $28.95. The documentary itself will be presented in 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 track. Extras will include a featurette entitled The Release of Fahrenheit 9/11, a montage called The People of Iraq on the Eve of Invasion, a new scene entitled Homeland Security: Miami Style, an Outside Abu Ghraib Prison featurette and an Eyewitness account from Samara, Iraq. Completing the package will be an extended Michael Moore interview with Abdul Henderson, Lila Lipscomb at the Washington D.C. Premiere, a featurette on some Arab-American Comedians and their acts and experiences after 9/11, Condoleeza Rice's 9/11 Commission Testimony and a Rose Garden press briefing after the 9/11 commission appearance.

'9/11' is pirated to Cuban TV
From staff and wire reports

Unauthorized Cuban showings of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" will not disqualify the divisive film from Oscar eligibility for best documentary, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and Lions Gate Releasing said Tuesday.

Under Oscar rules, documentaries can be disqualified if they are shown on television or the Internet within nine months of their theatrical release. Moore's movie, which debuted in June, has been shown on Cuba's state-run television network and in the country's movie theaters, according to CNN and Reuters.

Lions Gate, which is releasing "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the United States, said that the showings in the communist country were not sanctioned and that they originated from a pirated copy.

"We're absolutely not going to punish someone for having their film pirated or stolen," academy spokesman John Pavlik said Tuesday.

Moore's film also remains eligible for consideration in other Oscar categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kuwait bans showings of '9/11'
From Associated Press

Kuwait, a major U.S. ally in the Persian Gulf, has banned Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" because it deems the movie insulting to the Saudi Arabian royal family and is critical of America's invasion of Iraq, an official said.

"We have a law that prohibits insulting friendly nations, and ties between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are special," said Abdul-Aziz Bou Dastour, cinema and production supervisor at the Information Ministry.

FEC dismisses '9/11' electioneering complaint

WASHINGTON -- Federal authorities on Friday dismissed a complaint by a conservative political organization that "Fahrenheit 9/11" violated the nation's election laws.

In a short opinion made public on Friday, the Federal Election Commission ruled that the advertising campaign for the movie complied with the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
 
"The Commission dismissed this matter since the Respondents had not violated the Act because the relevant electioneering communications period does not begin until July 31, 2004 and because the Respondents stated that they did not intend to run such ads during the electioneering communications period," according to an FEC release.

Citizen's Untied and its president, a long-time conservative political investigator, accused the film's director Michael Moore, distributor Lion's Gate Entertainment and producers Harvey and Bob Weinstein and others that it qualified as "electioneering communications" under the act because it was made with the "express purpose of influencing the outcome of the 2004 presidential election."

In particular it accused the film's producers and distributors of violating the election law because the marketing campaign is paid for with corporate money and "includes broadcast ads and the release of a trailer that includes references to and/or images of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, U.S. Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) and other candidates for federal elective office."

The film's distributors praised the FEC action.

"Since distributors had not violated the Act and had no intention to do so, the Commission unanimously dismissed the case and closed its file on the matter," Lions Gate Films, IFC Films, and the Fellowship Adventure Group said in a release. "The distributors feel that this was the correct and proper response under the circumstances, and applaud the Commission for its timely and appropriate decision."

I got an email of this. Well... it is a pretty well constructed argument, judge for yourselves. I think it's the best Michael Moore criticizing I've ever seen.
http://www.davekopel.org/terror/59Deceits.pdf

It's a well-constructed argument because it's from one of the biggest right-wing think tanks (propaganda machines) in the country. There are some valid criticisms (like the Clarke thing). But almost every statement in this document is ten times as false, misleading, and manipulative as the movie itself:

Quote1. The Gore "victory" rally isn't celebrating a Florida win. It  was held before the polls had even opened."

What I got out of that clip is how strange and surreal it was for Gore to be celebrating. You can tell they know they haven't won yet. I mean, just look at De Niro's face.

Quote2. Like all the other networks, Fox mistakenly said that Gore  had won in Florida. The first network to retract the Florida  mistake was CBS, not Fox.

This is really disgusting because the retraction is not even mentioned in the movie... the point is that Fox was the first to call it for Bush and the rest followed. And this article doesn't argue with that. But it makes it seem like Moore was wrong... he wasn't even close to being wrong. Of course Fox wasn't the first to retract the Bush mistake... they would be the last! What is this article trying to do, confuse people?

Quote3. A 6-month study by a consortium of major newspapers  shows that Bush would have won the Florida recount under  any of the terms which Gore sought in his lawsuits.

From Moore's website:

[A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes.  Donald Lambro, "Recount Provides No Firm Answers," Washington Times, November 12, 2001.

"The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and there was no mechanism in place to conduct one."   Martin Merzer, "Review of Ballots Finds Bush's Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount," Miami Herald, April 4, 2001.

See also, the following article by one of the Washington Post journalists who ran the consortium recount.  The relevant point is made in Table I of the article. http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

Quote4. Investigation by the Palm Beach Post and others shows  that race was not a reason why election officials mistakenly disqualified some voters because they were incorrectly  thought to have felony convictions.

Sorry to dispute the credibility of the Palm Beach Post, but I seriously doubt it was coincidental. Again, from michaelmoore.com...

Database Technologies, a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, "was responsible for bungling an overhaul of Florida's voter registration records, with the result that thousands of people, disproportionately black, were disenfranchised in the 2000 election.  Had they been able to vote, they might have swung the state, and thus the presidency, for Al Gore, who lost in Florida. Oliver Burkeman, Jo Tuckman, "Firm in Florida Election Fiasco Earns Millions from Files on Foreigners," The Guardian, May 5, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,949709,00.html.  See also, Atlanta-Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001.

In 1997, Rick Rozar, the late head of the company bought by ChoicePoint, donated $100,000 to the Republican National Committee. Melanie Eversley, "Atlanta-Based Company Says Errors in Felon Purge Not Its Fault," Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001.  Frank Borman of Database Technologies Inc. has donated extensively to New Mexico Republicans, as well as to the Presidential campaign of George W. Bush. Opensecrets.org, "Frank Borman."

Quote5. Bush's Presidency before 9/11 was not in serious trouble.  No commentator said that he looked like a lame-duck president. Congress had passed his #1 bill (the tax cut) and was  on the way to passing his #2 bill (the education bill). The  scene at the end of the movie in which Bush tells a rich audience "I call you my base," was from an October 2000 charity fund-raiser. Both Gore and Bush spoke at the fund-raiser  and, as is the custom at the fund-raiser, made fun of themselves.

As for Bush's popularity, the polls don't lie. Is it really surprising that the Republican congress liked him? As for the "I call you my base" comment, yes it was a "charity" fundraiser, but a fundraiser for the Catholic church (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/18/politics/main242210.shtml), which, in my mind, is no less corrupt and greedy than Wal-Mart. And his audience was super-rich, which is why he said "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base."

I could go on and on through all of them, but I don't feel like writing a novel. They're mostly exclusionary and misleading suggestions that are unsupported by facts. Check out the evidence that Michael Moore has provided (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/index.php?id=16). And the most frustrating thing is that it argues with things that aren't even claimed in the movie. Isn't that deceitful?

Some of the later "deceits" are hilarious, especially 54 and 55.

And the end of the article claims he's a life-long Democrat and endorsed Nader in 2000. Is there anything remotely left-wing on his website, besides his token ACLU membership? This man has done more Bush apologizing than Ari Fleischer and has more NRA connections than Ted Nugent. (which mean's he's probably been after Moore since Bowling for Columbine)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffaculty-web.at.nwu.edu%2Fenglish%2Fcaregan%2Fc02%2Fhel%2Foe%2Fmaps%2Fanglo-saxon_map-region.gif&hash=4be8a62863733e784754e643a3d987ad3a7f4d41)

Has anyone read 'Bush's Brain,' that book about Karl Rove? I saw the documentary based on it today, and thought it was a piece of crap...really bad documentary filmmaking which does almost nothing to convince the viewer of Rove's insidious nature...which one would think wouldn't be that hard. Anyway, I'd recommend not seeing the movie and reading the book instead, which the film is basically an 80 minute advertisement for anyway.

Moore reaches deal for book of letters from Iraq
Source: Hollywood Reporter

NEW YORK -- "Fahrenheit 9/11" helmer Michael Moore has inked a deal with publishing house Simon & Schuster to publish a collection of letters sent to the helmer from U.S. troops stationed in Iraq. Slated to hit shelves in November, the tome's title will be "Will They Ever Trust Us Again?" "I'm proud to give voice to the troops who have written to me," Moore said in a statement issued by Simon & Schuster. The publisher is additionally releasing "The Official 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Reader" to coincide with the documentary's DVD/home video rollout in October. The "Reader" contains the full transcript of the film, released by Lions Gate Films, IFC Films and Bob and Harvey Weinstein, as well as additional material. To date, "Fahrenheit" has taken in more than $115 million. Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment will release the record-breaking documentary on video Oct. 5. The deal to acquire "Will They Ever" was brokered by Simon & Schuster executive vp and publisher David Rosenthal and Mort Janklow of Janklow & Nesbit. The letters in the volume were received by Moore during the past year, and much of the correspondence was directed to his Web site, www.michaelmoore.com.

Very good news! Mmmm... thank you MacGuffin.

I just hope it doesn't have him on the cover... not even a Kevin Smith peek-a-boo.

The question, of course, is when in November this book will be published.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI just hope it doesn't have him on the cover... not even a Kevin Smith peek-a-boo.

My dream DVD cover is of Michael Moore and Kevin Smith playing peek-a-boo together. Moore on the left, Smith on the right.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThe question, of course, is when in November this book will be published.

According to the Los Angeles Times, a Simon & Schuster spokesperson said, "our goal is to have both books out by election day."

and at last i could see it!!!!
well i liked it very much but i'm not sure if it really deserved the Golden Palm in Cannes mmmmmm...
The documentary is really good but there is something that in my opinion does not give it much reliability: Moore's voice...i mean, he's not impartial at all BUT i know that's his style and it's tolerable
well after all i guess the most important thing about this film is what it shows not only to American people but the rest of us, my friend and i agreed that night that politicians are the same around the world doesn't really matters where they are from, which language they talk, it's always the same mediocrity, insensitivity, cruelty, everything, and us doing nothing, knowing nothing...and i thought those things were property just of the third world, what a naive i was :(

How does the old texan saying go?

"fool me once....shame on.... shame on you?... if you fool me I can't get fooled again"

It looks like he messed it up, but I don't know how it really goes.

Quote from: rustinglassHow does the old texan saying go?

"fool me once....shame on.... shame on you?... if you fool me I can't get fooled again"

It looks like he messed it up, but I don't know how it really goes.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Yes, it really is that simple.

Quote from: rustinglassHow does the old texan saying go?

"fool me once....shame on.... shame on you?... if you fool me I can't get fooled again"

It looks like he messed it up, but I don't know how it really goes.

nah, it was, according to the Daily Show:
"fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on...shame on you.  You see, the fool can't get fooled again."

This reminds me of the pressing question...

Why did he not use The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" as the closing song?

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Michael Moore vs Pete Townshend: Fahrenheit 9/11 director branded a "bully"  
July 14, 2004

Former 'The Who' star and top child pornography researcher, Pete Townshend, has hit out at Michigan-born filmmaker Michael Moore. According to the BBC:

Moore had wanted to use Townshend's song Won't Get Fooled Again on the soundtrack to his anti-Iraq war film Fahrenheit 9/11. After Townshend refused, the guitarist, 59, claims Moore accused him of being in favour of the war.
Townshend has posted an entry in the Pete's Diaries section of his website, in which he claims that Moore's accusations "distort the truth":

He says – among other things – that I refused to allow him to use my song WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN in his latest film, because I support the war, and that at the last minute I recanted, but he turned me down. I have never hidden the fact that at the beginning of the war in Iraq I was a supporter. But now, like millions of others, I am less sure we did the right thing.
There is something of the Charles Pooter about Pete Townshend. He always seems to be bumbling into things, upsetting people, apologizing, getting arrested, apologizing again. And that is a brilliantly Pooterish sentence: "But now... I am less sure we did the right thing" - as if he's just looked around, seen the tumbleweed, and realised he'd hitched his waggon to the wrong horse.

Pete has carved a peculiarly Pooterish character for himself by suggesting that, whilst being desperately keen to help anti-child-pornography charities, he is unable to because of the bad publicity brought about by his arrest over the "research"...


Every time it occurs to me to say something about what is going on I remind myself what happened to me this year: I was arrested, suspected of wallowing in the very shit that most upset me. It sent me a clear and loud message. I must learn to keep silent and focus my energies elsewhere.

One of Pete's most Pooterish traits is that very often (usually in the context of an apology or a clarification of some misunderstood stance) he goes into rather too much detail, slightly over-explaining his actions or his thought processes, for example:


Once I had an idea what the film was about I was 90% certain my song was not right for them.... I suggested in the email that they might use something by Neil Young, who I knew had written several songs of a more precise political nature, and is as accessible as I am. Moore himself takes credit for this idea, and I have no idea whether my suggestion reached him, but it was the right thing to do.

It's always worth keeping an eye on Townshend's site to see what new thing he's clarifying or (apologizing for), e.g.

I am sorry this stuff keeps rearing its ugly head. Jimi Hendrix, Peter Meadon, Kit Lambert, Keith Moon, the Cincinnati Eleven, John Entwistle. I suppose we have to accept that everyone has to die in the end, but in every one of the cases above I have at some point said things in pain that I have later regretted.
And on the subject of saying stupid things, this is his closing sentiment about Michael Moore:


I wish him all the best with the movie, which I know is popular, and which I still haven't seen. But he'll have to work very, very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the world more effectively than a man with a guitar.

Except of course when the man with the guitar isn't able to change the world because of all the negative publicity that surrounds him, so he just has to sit on his yacht and grind his teeth...

Ah.

What was the point of that article?

Quote from: Chest RockwellWhat was the point of that article?

to remind ppl that pete townshend is still alive.

Quotetop child pornography researcher, Pete Townshend

This makes it look like he looks at a lot of child porn.

Quote from: Ravi

Quotetop child pornography researcher, Pete Townshend

This makes it look like he looks at a lot of child porn.

well, he kinda did..

I just watched this film and still have a knot in my  throat. Regardless on anyone's opinions even Michael Moore's,  fuck you/them, i have to say that snuff films and the war on irak are the two worst things i've been a witness of, and i've seen shit . I haven't been in Irak,  but I intended to, in December 2002, back when it was a possibility, and it was just a 4 hour away drive from where i lived.

 I won't say much about this film , being that it only has one opinion, which doesn't lets you form any. However , i will say this:

JB, please do not vote for Nader.


I guess this is like beating a dead horse, because the Michael Moore avatars over here are gone. Attention spans are very short these days.

EDIT: I knew i'd regret half of this post two hours later.

Moore Invites McCain To See Movie

Director Michael Moore has offered to take US Senator John McCain to see Fahrenheit 9/11, after the politician slammed his controversial film. At the Republican National Convention on Monday, guest speaker McCain prompted boos against Moore after denouncing the documentary, which attacked American President George W. Bush's handling of the September 11 terrorist attacks. McCain called Moore - who was covering the event at New York's Madison Square Garden for newspaper USA Today - "a disingenuous film-maker who would have us believe that Saddam (Hussein)'s Iraq was an oasis of peace". And Moore made an appearance on comedian David Letterman's chat show Wednesday night, where he encountered more boos - coupled with cheers - and offered to take McCain to the cinema. Moore told Letterman, "He hasn't seen it yet. I'll take him to the movies while he's here in New York. It's just playing down the street and if he doesn't like it, afterwards I'll let him pummel me like you suggested!" McCain, a booked guest on the show, later shot back, "I admire his skills as a movie maker and certainly admire his success at making money. Seems like he could afford a shave and a haircut!"

McCain disappoints me.  I thought he was above that kind of thing.

Yes, if you're going to make an attack like that on national TV describing a specific scene in the movie, try actually seeing the movie first.

i agree, he should've seen the movie first, but still... he wasnt wrong was he?

I'm tired of all of these directors looking like depressed sasquatches

Quote from: themodernage02i agree, he should've seen the movie first, but still... he wasnt wrong was he?

I definitely think he was wrong, and he would probably be embarassed to discover the tonal context of that scene. It's classic Moore hyperbole, exactly like the NRA/KKK connection in Bowling for Columbine, and his reaction to the McCain remark, "I now know what the Christians probably felt like walking into the Colosseum."

I mean... do you remember the scene? With the kid flying the kite? And the reflection in the pond?

It's probably the most complicated, subtle, ambiguous scene in the movie, but I guess it failed.

Quote from: MacGuffinMcCain, a booked guest on the show, later shot back, "I admire his skills as a movie maker and certainly admire his success at making money.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Chest RockwellOnce you see Outfoxed do make sure to give us your opinion. I was thinking of buying it.

The editing was average. Every single graphic was obnoxious and distracting. There's one scene with a vertical wipe that slides across this guy's face to avoid a jump cut... I had no idea what it was at first... some kind of wobbly public access level iMovie effect.

I finally discovered what that wipe is. It's "jaws wipe" in Final Cut Pro. The most silly thing you could possibly use.

Moore to Pursue Best Picture Oscar

Michael Moore says he won't submit "Fahrenheit 9/11" for consideration as best documentary at this year's Academy Awards. Instead, he's going for the bigger prize of best picture.

Moore's critically acclaimed film slams President Bush's war on terror as ill-advised and corrupt. The movie has cheered Democrats but enraged the president's supporters, who booed Moore when he visited the Republican National Convention last week.

"For me the real Oscar would be Bush's defeat on Nov. 2," Moore told The Associated Press during a phone interview Monday from New York.

The $6 million film has become a sensation that collected $117.3 million in the United States this summer, despite an early roadblock when the Walt Disney Co. banned its Miramax Films division from distributing the political hot-potato.

In the midst of the presidential campaign, Moore's announcement is a strategic move for his Oscar campaign. Documentaries and animated films have their own categories, but the conventional wisdom in Hollywood is that those niche awards can limit a film's appeal in the overall best picture class.

Moore said he and his producing partner, Harvey Weinstein, agreed "Fahrenheit 9/11" would stand a better chance if they focused solely on the top Oscar.

He also said he wanted to be "supportive of my teammates in nonfiction film."

So many documentaries such as the gonzo fast-food satire "Super Size Me" and the sober look at Arab television news in "Control Room" have made the rounds in theaters recently that Moore, who won the best documentary Oscar for "Bowling for Columbine," said he wanted to give others a chance.

"It's not that I want to be disrespectful and say I don't ever want to win a (documentary) Oscar again," Moore said. "This just seems like the right thing to do. ... I don't want to take away from the other nominees and the attention that they richly deserve."

Moore also hinted in a recent interview in Rolling Stone he would like the movie to play on television before the presidential election. According to the rules of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, playing on TV would invalidate its contention in the documentary category, but not for best picture. With the movie coming out on DVD Oct. 5, it's not clear whether the TV deal would happen.

Regardless of who wins the election, Moore said the movie's presence at the Academy Awards in February will provide another forum for Americans to think about its message.

"The issues in the film terrorism, the war on terrorism, the Iraq war will be with us five months from now, sadly," Moore said. "The issues that the film raises will be no less relevant, in the new year."

I like the whole "give the other Oscars a chance" thing (it sounds arrogant but it's really kind of generous) but on the other hand I don't really know what to think of this.

Times Won't Reprint Article for New Book

The New York Times will not permit Michael Moore to include an article criticizing its own reporting for an upcoming companion book to the DVD release of the filmmaker's "Fahrenheit 9-11."

"We strongly value The Times's neutrality in its election coverage and we are determined not to associate ourselves with any work in film or print that attacks either candidate," New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said in a statement released Thursday.

Moore's "The Official `Fahrenheit 9-11' Reader" is scheduled to come out next month in conjunction with the DVD release of "Fahrenheit 9-11," Moore's take on President Bush, the Iraq war and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The movie, which relentlessly criticizes and ridicules the president, has earned more than $100 million at the box office, a record for a documentary.

The Times article, published in May, was a self-analysis of the newspaper's pre-Iraq war reporting, including Bush administration claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

"In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged," according to the article.

Moore's publisher, Simon & Schuster, said several other publications granted Moore permission to use material, including The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. Only the Times refused.

"Michael Moore attracts controversy and this is no exception," David Rosenthal, Simon & Schuster's executive vice president and publisher, said in a statement Friday.

"Fahrenheit 9/11," which won the top honor at the Cannes Film Festival in May, was controversial even before it reached theaters, in July. The movie lost its original distributor when the Walt Disney Co. refused to let subsidiary Miramax Films release it because of its political content.

Miramax chiefs Harvey and Bob Weinstein bought back the film and arranged for independent distribution through Lions Gate Films and IFC Films.

is there any reports that shows how many people saw this doc on the 11th this saturday?

Quote from: mogwaiis there any reports that shows how many people saw this doc on the 11th this saturday?

Here (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2004&wknd=37&p=.htm) are the estimates of the past weekend and F911 doesn't appear there, I assume it didn't do that great, you should check this (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=fahrenheit911.htm) link later to see how did the film.

Fahrenheit 9/11 To Be Reissued

Michael Moore is updating his Fahrenheit 9/11, adding previously deleted scenes, excerpts from testimony before the 9/11 Commission, and other material -- and will reissue it theatrically on Sept. 24, published reports said today (Friday). The reissue is apparently intended to promote the Oct. 5 DVD release, which will also include the additional scenes. Meanwhile, Simon & Schuster, the publisher, said Thursday that the New York Times had refused permission for Moore to include in his upcoming book The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader an article in which the newspaper reviewed its shortcomings in reporting on the events leading up to the war in Iraq. A spokeswoman for the newspaper later said that it is "determined not to associate ourselves with any work in film or print that attacks either candidate."

what the fuck is he doing.

Quote from: Pedro the Alpacawhat the fuck is he doing.

making A LOT of money.

Quote from: Pedro the Alpacawhat the fuck is he doing.

..adding more "special effects" back into his film...

Who'll be the first to make the "so-and-so shoots first"-joke?

man, theatrically released film is totally the wrong medium to be "up to date".

I love Michael Moore but he really needs to stop smoking so much damn crack.

You guys are all fucking stupid, honestly.

Quote from: CinephileYou guys are all fucking stupid, honestly.

hahahaha...........


but not nearly as stupid as michael moore's  little cult following....so, he thinks up way to cheat people and make them see his film agian..and make more money.......sounds lik esomething like enron would do or some other corporate sleezes would do...and michael moore is supposed to be agaisnt this kind of sh*t.......please,  :roll: , he aint nothing but a capitalist pig and hes got all you pseudo-liberals bending over while he phucks you in the ass and then feeds you his bullsH*t....
:kiss:

 
........i am kidding, but it sounded real didnt it?......

Why didn't we get this angry when 28 Days Later was re-released?

But seriously, Neon... comparing a documentary film to Enron?

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

But seriously, Neon... comparing a documentary film to Enron?

... :wink: .i was kidding about that
thats suppose to be part of the joke [i.e. comparing enron to a documentary film]....

But the text was so small, Neon. It was so small.

Quote from: CinephileYou guys are all fucking stupid, honestly.

Heh. I love Michael Moore, Cinephile. Don't get me wrong. I saw F911 five fucking times.

I just think this a stupid idea and he's just trying to bring in more bucks.

And sadly. He'll be getting mine. I'd like to see more footage, regardless.

Quote from: HedwigI just think this a stupid idea and he's just trying to bring in more bucks.

Yes, he'll get more bucks out of it, but he's doing it so he can DRILL IT into America's head of how bad the Bush regime is. i.e. people saying "I'm not qualified for the CIA" and yet.. that person is nominated for the CIA by Bush. Stuff like that will be included. As it should be.

Some of you are disgustingly cynical about Michael Moore.

Quote from: Cinephilehe's doing it so he can DRILL IT into America's head of how bad the Bush regime is. i.e. people saying "I'm not qualified for the CIA" and yet.. that person is nominated for the CIA by Bush.

Okay, good point. That is a revealing piece of footage and it's a good thing people are going to be able to see it. Hmmm. I guess I'll have to wait and see the new version before I say anything more about it.

QuoteSome of you are disgustingly cynical about Michael Moore

whatever. the Bowling for Columbine thread is worse, I think.

Quote from: CinephileYou guys are all fucking stupid, honestly.

I just took a shit and thought of you.

I'm just going to wait till i see outfoxed and michael moore hates america before I decide who to vote for.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanWhy didn't we get this angry when 28 Days Later was re-released?

But seriously, Neon... comparing a documentary film to Enron?

have you ever thought of moving to Cambridge, MA?  Chomsky's here, Franken stops by frequently, and Howard Zinn also kinda lives here.  Really, the street is full of people like you.  They clap at Farenheit 7-11, they throw ironic street performances, and they're all completely unique.  I hawked a loogie off the rooftop and it landed on three Jeremy Blackmans' faces.
I'm gonna hawk another one right now.

You're a badass, man.  They aren't individuals, you are!  These people who create things?  Please.  You know, YOU KNOW, man, that anyone who creates something is automatically full of themselves.

These pieces of shit who think they're so great, yeah, time for a REALITY CHECK.

Though some people find it hard to believe that individuals can be evil who write and create things that are specifically increasing a mindset of compassion that helps out poor, discriminated against, and marginalized groups in our society, you cut through that shit.

Not only do you cut through all that spin, but you also equate authors and filmmakers who document as clearly as they can for a general audience what they feel is happening in society, with avante-garde street performances!  Finally, someone has made that connection!  Mr. INDIVIDUAL!

wow, you say some really obvious things.
please, tell me what the real crime is.

Quote from: petehave you ever thought of moving to Cambridge, MA?  Chomsky's here, Franken stops by frequently, and Howard Zinn also kinda lives here.  Really, the street is full of people like you.  They clap at Farenheit 7-11, they throw ironic street performances, and they're all completely unique.  I hawked a loogie off the rooftop and it landed on three Jeremy Blackmans' faces.
I'm gonna hawk another one right now.

I've been to Boston, and I really loved it. I could imagine myself living there. I would drink lemonade every day in the Commons and take contemplative strolls along the brick sidewalks, breathing the salty ocean air and marvelling at all the Apple billboards. I really liked the feel of the place. How long have you lived there?

why couldn't you be this nice when people were chatting up about the michael moore re-release seven posts ago?

Moore Threatens To Sue After Lecture Is Canceled


Controversial movie-maker Michael Moore is lashing out at officials at California's Cal State University after a lecture he was scheduled to give was pulled from the autumn schedule. The Fahrenheit 9/11 director was due to give an address to students three weeks before the upcoming presidential elections in November but the lecture has been scrapped over fears the university would appear to be taking sides politically. Moore is a fervent Democrat, who is fiercely opposed to current president George W Bush, and campus officials couldn't balance his anti-Republican stance with a conservative speaker of "comparable significance". But Moore is refusing to let the cancellation pass without incident - he's threatening to sue the university, claiming officials there have broken a contract with him. Those students opposed to the decision to axe Moore's lecture are hoping to persuade the movie heavyweight to speak at an off-campus location. They've raised $46,000 to cover Moore's appearance fee and the rental of an undisclosed hall.

QuoteMoore is a fervent Democrat

Right...

Quote from: Michael Moore, today, on his website,If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win! What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don't run -- and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

QuoteMoore is a fervent Democrat

Right...

Quote from: Michael Moore, today, on his website,If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win! What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don't run -- and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run.

Good call. Btw, I took that from IMDB, forgot to mention that.

In case any one is interested, I made a collage (http://xixax.com/files/jb/outfoxedguests.jpg) of all the guests in Outfoxed.

Why?  (Honestly curious.)

I was quoting them for a review and that made it easier.

i am very interested, thank u.

what's up with jeremy glick?

He looks like a young Stanley Tucci.

Quote from: Pubricki am very interested, thank u.

what's up with jeremy glick?

He's out chanting about the alledgedholocaust in Germany.

(in case anyone takes this out of context, Glick says the 9/11 were allegded assassinations)

Here's some audio (http://xixax.com/files/jb/glick.mp3) of the Glick episode.

They've also made interviews available for download (http://www.archive.org/movies/movies-details-db.php?collection=election_2004&collectionid=outfoxed_interviews).

Quote from: Reformed WeirdoHe's out chanting about the alledgedholocaust in Germany.

i'm confused, what does the holocaust hav to do with anything?

Quote from: Reformed Weirdo(in case anyone takes this out of context, Glick says the 9/11 were allegded assassinations)

Well, before you take Glick out of context, here's the full quote...

"Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and murder of my father and countless of thousands of others."

I'm pretty sure the "alleged" part is supposed to mean that these people he's talking about are the alleged perpetrators of the crime. It's a little awkward, but there it is. Do you seriously believe (especially in this context, and with the end of his sentence) that he's saying 9/11 may not have happened?

And nothing he says is incorrect. Our government has a history of supporting and cooperating with Saudi Arabia (which is where Bin Laden and the highjackers are from) and the Taliban (as recently as the summer of 2001).

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Reformed Weirdo(in case anyone takes this out of context, Glick says the 9/11 were allegded assassinations)

Well, before you take Glick out of context, here's the full quote...

"Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and murder of my father and countless of thousands of others."

I'm pretty sure the "alleged" part is supposed to mean that these people he's talking about are the alleged perpetrators of the crime. It's a little awkward, but there it is. Do you seriously believe (especially in this context, and with the end of his sentence) that he's saying 9/11 may not have happened?

And nothing he says is incorrect. Our government has a history of supporting and cooperating with Saudi Arabia (which is where Bin Laden and the highjackers are from) and the Taliban (as recently as the summer of 2001).

I like Jeremy Blackman.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Reformed Weirdo(in case anyone takes this out of context, Glick says the 9/11 were allegded assassinations)

Well, before you take Glick out of context, here's the full quote...



And nothing he says is incorrect. Our government has a history of supporting and cooperating with Saudi Arabia (which is where Bin Laden and the highjackers are from) and the Taliban (as recently as the summer of 2001).

Actually, I believe he didn't mention Saudi Arabia once. He basically insinuated that GHWB was responisble for training of the hijackers. Now yes I understand we trained the Mujahadeen to fight the USSR in Afghanistan. Glick's viewpoint was obviously fringe left of the popular view in the country that the invasion of Afghanistan I watched Outfoxed and I thought it was horrible. It basically strung a bunch of clips together in order to prove some sort of right wing agenda. I  rarely watch the FNC except for the O'reilly Factor and a show called Fox News Watch. However, I think other networks such as CNN were examined with a fine-tooth comb like FNC, we would fine trends that would prove them to have more liberal news agenda.

And honestly, I don't think either way is wrong. Don't watch TV at all for your news. Read the newspaper or look at internet sources. They are much more likely to give straight news.

Quote from: Reformed WeirdoActually, I believe he didn't mention Saudi Arabia once.

Well, when he mentioned "the parties involved" in 9/11, bin Laden and the highjackers come to mind.

Quote from: Reformed WeirdoHe basically insinuated that GHWB was responisble for training of the hijackers.

GHWB was extremely responsible for the rise and dominance of the Taliban, which harbored Al Qaeda. Where's the exaggeration?

Quote from: Reformed WeirdoGlick's viewpoint was obviously fringe left of the popular view in the country

Then we should just ignore him, shouldn't we, because he obviously must be wrong if he's not popular.

Quote from: Reformed WeirdoI watched Outfoxed and I thought it was horrible. It basically strung a bunch of clips together in order to prove some sort of right wing agenda.

It aggravates me when people get reactionary like that, like "oh it must be conveniently edited and therefore everything is out of context and wrong." Try investigating it. What exactly is out of context and how is it out of context?

Quote from: Reformed WeirdoHowever, I think other networks such as CNN were examined with a fine-tooth comb like FNC, we would fine trends that would prove them to have more liberal news agenda.

http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-gop.html

I like you angry again, Jeremy Blackman.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Reformed WeirdoHowever, I think other networks such as CNN were examined with a fine-tooth comb like FNC, we would fine trends that would prove them to have more liberal news agenda.

http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-gop.html

I know I'm coming into this way late but Reformed Weirdo's post caught my eye.  

My girlfriend used to work at CNN.  The "liberal media" stigma attached to them is just not true.  They're no Fox, believe me, and technically you'd be right by saying that they have a "more liberal news agenda," but who doesn't have a more liberal news agenda than Fox?  In any case, they're not as liberal as Fox is conservative, not even close.  I've heard about plenty of story ideas getting quietly squashed as they were considered too liberal, though it was never said in so many words.

Just had to clarify that.  Carry on.

George Mason U. Cancels Michael Moore Talk

George Mason University on Thursday canceled plans to have "Fahrenheit 9/11" director Michael Moore speak on campus five days before the presidential election.

The decision came after a Republican state legislator wrote a letter to university President Alan G. Merten protesting the Fairfax school's plans to pay the filmmaker $35,000 to speak on Oct. 28.

"We just felt it wasn't the most appropriate use of (public) funds, so we decided the best thing to do was cancel," school spokesman Daniel Walsch said.

George Mason didn't notify Moore before making the decision public, Walsch said.

A message left seeking comment from Moore wasn't immediately returned to The Associated Press, but he told The Washington Post he plans to come and speak anyway.

"I'm going to show up in support of free speech and free expression," he said.

Loudoun County Del. Richard L. Black wrote a letter dated Tuesday urging Merten to reconsider the university's "lavish payment" to Moore, or to cancel the appearance.

"Tax money is being spent poorly, and for partisan purposes," wrote Black, who has one of the General Assembly's most conservative voting records.

Walsch said university officials didn't discuss with Moore whether they would allow him to speak if he waived his fee, nor did they approach student groups or other private organizations to come up with the money.

Moore's film, still playing in theaters, criticizes and ridicules President Bush's response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and his decision to invade Iraq.

He does charge too much for these appearances. He should be doing it for free, especially this month...

Oct 5, M. Moore will be releasing TWO F9/11 soundtracks, one of the score and songs and one of songs that inspired him, TWO books, and a DVD.

if you got some sugar for me......

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB00005JNEI.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=ce36ad65bcbed3059567e39c5954be1aad619997)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0743272927.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=e4e826508712547a2ad417a81ddcc84011848b74)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0743271521.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=05d449a073b8c084eca5dbbea9f7eb582c1b6a6a)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB0002ZMIVM.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=cbb133764ecdd76081a243495546c7b54d7312ee)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB00049QM6S.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=7ca77d18c11283fe129e689ce60a52c8099bc2dc)


MICHAEL MOORE'S TRACK BY TRACK AND ALBUM COMMENTARY ON SONGS AND ARTISTS THAT INSPIRED FAHRENHEIT 9/11


When I make a film, I take my portable CD case and place in it a series of albums which contain music that reflects the mood I am in and the reasons that are motivating me to make this film. I play these CDs for myself and for my crew. Sometimes we have them playing in the van while we are driving around and filming. Sometimes I listen to them at night, thinking about what I want to accomplish the next day on the shoot. It is not easy to crash Capitol Hill to ask Congressmen if they would like to send THEIR sons to Iraq. Music helps get us there.

The songs contained on this CD are either the actual songs that made up our "on-the-scene" soundtrack, or they are by artists whom I have listened to over the years and have given me much inspiration...


Little Steven -- "I Am a Patriot"... That is how I feel. That is what we are. People who love our country and are trying to save it. This is a great anthem (and I love Jackson Browne's version of it also).


Bruce Springsteen -- "Chimes of Freedom" ...What can I say? Bruce is THE man. I have had his music playing in all my work, starting with "My Hometown" in "Roger & Me." He is who we all aspire to be! He never broke faith. I have carried his "Chimes of Freedom" EP with me for years, an EP that not many have, and I am proud to include it here.


Bob Dylan -- "With God On Our Side"... I once drove a thousand miles, from Flint, Mich. to Quebec City, to see Bob Dylan and Joan Baez in concert. Dylan (along with John Lennon) saved our entire generation from Pat Boone. That we would have a president now using God in this manner to defeat those whom he sees as godless makes this song all the more relevant more than 40 years after Dylan first recorded it.

Zack de la Rocha -- "We Want It All" ... Zack, the lead singer of the greatest rock band of the '90s, Rage Against the Machine, is, in person, the most gentle of souls you will ever meet. But when he gets in the studio or on the stage, a fire erupts that consumes all who listen. This is his first song in five years and it's a barn burner! Welcome back, Zack, we need ya now more than ever...


System of a Down -- "Boom "... I directed the video for this song. It was actually a celebration of the worldwide anti-war demonstrations of February 15, the largest single-day protests ever in history. System of a Down was there, just like they always have been. Play this song in the car and play it loud!


The Nightwatchman --"No One Left" ...Tom Morello, guitar slayer extrordinaire of Rage Against the Machine and now of Audioslave, has an alter ego and it's The Nightwatchman. This brand new track is both beautiful and haunting -- and painfully true. Death in New York, death in Baghdad, it is all to be mourned. Tom sings, the guitar is acoustic, and I am compelled to play this song over and over.


Pearl Jam -- "Masters of War"... Damn right, Eddie Vedder! I hear every bit of your anger that we all feel right now. There is a judgment day, and I wouldn't want to be standing next to anyone in the Bush administration when the avenging angel comes a-looking. This version of the Dylan classic is so brutal, so piercing, you find yourself glancing around to see if anyone is going to arrest you just for listening to it.


Dixie Chicks -- "Travelin' Soldier"... I was not the first to call out the President when I did so on that Oscar stage. Ten days before, the Dixie Chicks did it first. How wonderfully ironic that the first blow against this madness did not come from any of the usual "lefty" places, but rather from three moms from Bush's Texas. But that is how the revolution usually starts, isn't it? Some average, everyday Joe or Jane just gets fed up and says, OK, I've had enough. I love these three women. Their courage -- and the abuse and censorship that they had to sustain and overcome -- did much to get me through this past year. In the end, they were back on top, more popular than ever (so much for that old adage of you better not rock the boat or you will lose everything). And this song, about a kid who dies in Vietnam and nobody really cares except one pigtailed girl, is a heartbreaker for all who have lost a loved one in this current worthless war.


John Fogerty -- "Fortunate Son"... Says it all. Bush, the fortunate son who didn't have to go to Vietnam, now sends the sons, not of the fortunate, but of the poor and working class. I would love to play this song at full blast outside the White House some night. And don't think I won't!


The Clash -- "Know Your Rights" ... The street fightin' men of The Clash (along with the Sex Pistols) saved rock-n-roll from certain death in the late '70s, and this song is another great anthem for all to stand up and demand the rights guaranteed to us.


Steve Earle -- "The Revolution Starts Now"...This is an artist you must listen to. So much of his music in the past few years has been a call to action. A mix of country and rock and something that is only his, Steve pulls no punches and gives me much hope. This song is from his new album -- and every song on that album deserves a listen. If I were a rock star, I would be Steve Earle!


Black Eyed Peas featuring Justin Timberlake-- "Where Is The Love?"... My nieces first gave me this song when we were completing the programming for the "Bowling For Columbine" DVD. It was too late by then to include it as a musical bed for our bonus featurettes, but I kept it in my CD case because I loved the spirit and its audaciousness. It really is one of the first truly great songs of this new century.


Nanci Griffith -- "Goodnight, New York"... My wife and I were stranded 3,000 miles from home on the morning of 9/11, our daughter back in New York without us. We got in a car and drove home. The night we crossed the George Washington Bridge and looked down the length of the island to see the smoke still billowing was perhaps one of the saddest moments of my life. As a child, my mother used to take us to New York all the time. She loved this city, and we grew to love it, too. One day, I got to move here. This beautiful song touches me in a personal way and I love to think about the promise of New York, of this country and its ideals, and of my wonderful, loving mother.


Jeff Buckley -- "Hallelujah" ...While we were putting this record to bed, Tom Morello, Serj (from System of a Down) and I took over K-Rock in New York on the afternoon of the first day of the 2004 Republican convention. We played this song, not out of despair, but from a sense of hope -- a hope that perhaps a simple song can take us to a better place.


And I hope you enjoy this CD. Though the songs aren't "mine," I feel them in me, and they urge me on to do the work we all need to do. I hope it has the same effect on you. We're all in the same boat, we're all in this together.

-Michael Moore

sugar daddy, bring it home

I'll be buying all five of those things, being the obsessive compulsive completist that I am.

and i thought kotte had a problem..

ok so i won't be purchasing the soundtrack -- i have all of those songs already.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F0743271521.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=05d449a073b8c084eca5dbbea9f7eb582c1b6a6a)

This cover makes me laugh more than the one with Moore and Bush eating popcorn.

what is an official reader?

It's Moore with his best "spare some change" face.

Quote from: rustinglasswhat is an official reader?

Quote from: CinephileIt's Moore with his best "spare some change" face.

Obviously.

Quote from: Hedwigsugar daddy, bring it home

My God, that's a Hedwig song, isn't it?

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Hedwigsugar daddy, bring it home

My God, that's a Hedwig song, isn't it?

Yes. There is no escaping my Hedwiggines.

Michael Moore to Speak at Univ. of Minn.

Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore will speak at the University of Minnesota on Friday, an appearance that had been in doubt after campus Republicans objected to any use of school funds to pay for the event.

Moore will speak at 8 p.m. at Williams Arena, with his appearance sponsored by the Minnesota Alliance for Progressive Action. Tickets are $6 for the general public, $5 for students. The arena holds 14,000 people.

MAPA said it anticipates putting $30,000 into security, audiovisual needs and other event costs. MAPA spokeswoman Heather Foster said Moore is not getting a speaking fee, but her group will cover travel expenses for him and his staff. She said the university will be reimbursed for all costs of the event.

Moore, the director of "Fahrenheit 9/11," is on a "Slacker Uprising Tour" of 60 cities in 20 battleground states in an effort to get nontraditional voters to the polls. His latest film was released this week on DVD.

Republicans have criticized Moore because his film ridicules President Bush's response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and his decision to invade Iraq.

Last week, before Moore's speech was nailed down, the Minnesota College Republicans chapter said it would fight if his appearance involved the use of school money. University officials then said no public or student money would be used if he appeared.

The university bookstore had been interested in sponsoring the speech, but Foster said it dropped out and MAPA was the sole sponsor.

Moore is competing with two other big events Friday: the first playoff home game for the Minnesota Twins and the second presidential debate.

"We're encouraging people to tape the presidential debate and come see Michael Moore live," said C. Scott Cooper, MAPA's executive director.

George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., last week canceled plans for Moore to speak on campus five days before the election, after Republicans objected to the school's plan to pay him $35,000 for the appearance.

___

Eds: Tickets for Moore's appearance are available through the Gopher ticket office in person or by phone at (612) 624-8080 or 1-800-UGOPHER.

I got the Fahrenheit 911 soundtrack today without knowing it was even coming out. I was really surprised when I got to the store. I knew it would sell if they made one.

Quote from: Small Town LonerI got the Fahrenheit 911 soundtrack today without knowing it was even coming out.

If you visited the page 25 of this thread, you would've known. Hedwig shilled everything Moore will be releasing for the rest of his life.

Quote from: MacGuffinMAPA said it anticipates putting $30,000 into security, audiovisual needs and other event costs. MAPA spokeswoman Heather Foster said Moore is not getting a speaking fee, but her group will cover travel expenses for him and his staff. She said the university will be reimbursed for all costs of the event.

Okay. That was probably silly, then, what I said before.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanHe does charge too much for these appearances. He should be doing it for free, especially this month...

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: MacGuffinMAPA said it anticipates putting $30,000 into security, audiovisual needs and other event costs. MAPA spokeswoman Heather Foster said Moore is not getting a speaking fee, but her group will cover travel expenses for him and his staff. She said the university will be reimbursed for all costs of the event.

Okay. That was probably silly, then, what I said before.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanHe does charge too much for these appearances. He should be doing it for free, especially this month...

Wow, you know, I read that dumb book 'MICHAEL MOORE IS A BIG FAT STUPID WHITE MAN' and there's a whole buncha shit, i.e. "Oh he charges so much to speak at colleges, etc.!" Well, looky here! Republicans are bad with research, it seems.

also Michael Moore is kind of cute.

Quote from: Hedwigalso Michael Moore is kind of cute.

Especially with his

Quote from: Cinephilebest "spare some change" face.

State GOP says Michael Moore illegally offered underwear in exchange for voting. (http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw105215_20041005.htm)

aww, I was hoping that moore was offering his own underwear, you know, japanese school girl style.

He made an appearance here for free...

'Fahrenheit' Burns Home-Video Sales Records

Michael Moore's politically charged documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" sold about 2 million combined DVD and VHS units Tuesday (Oct. 5), its first day in release, according to industry sources.

That Day 1 sales figure and projected Week 1 sales of 3 million combined units set the benchmark as the most successful documentary ever released on home video.

While initial home video sales figures for "Fahrenheit" were expected to break records -- considering its $119 million domestic boxoffice take -- industry observers are watching closely to see how the title will sell and rent over time.

Of the units sold Tuesday, about 1.4 million were sold to rental stores, sources said.

Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment, which is distributing "Fahrenheit" in the United States, has taken a conservative approach to releasing the title, shipping about 3.4 million combined units to retail and rental stores for its launch week, sources said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Moore Responds to GOP Charges

Michael Moore shot back at Republicans on Wednesday after they requested that the filmmaker be prosecuted for offering underwear and food to college students in exchange for their promise to vote.

"It's ironic that Republicans have no problem with allowing assault weapons out on our streets, yet they don't want to put clean underwear in the hands of our slacker youth," Moore said. "The Republicans seem more interested in locking me up for trying to encourage people to participate in our democracy than locking up bin Laden for his attacks on our democracy."

The Michigan GOP on Tuesday asked four county prosecutors to file charges against Moore, citing an election law provision that prohibits a person from contracting with another for something of value in exchange for agreeing to vote.

Moore is touring the country and imploring "slackers" who usually don't vote to head to the polls this year, saying they could make the difference in the presidential race.

During each program, habitual nonvoters are invited on stage to pledge to vote. First-time student voters are offered gag prizes such as clean underwear.

9,000 Tickets Sold for Moore Appearance

Nine thousand tickets have been sold for Michael Moore's upcoming appearance at the University of Arizona, organizers said.

Moore, the director of "Fahrenheit 9/11," will appear at the university Monday. Tickets have sold for $5 each.

Fernando Ascencio, director of the Speakers Board of the Associated Students of the University of Arizona, said Wednesday the ticket sales will cover the filmmaker's $27,500 speaking fee, rental of McKale Center and other expenses.

Moore, a supporter of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, is touring the country and imploring "slackers" who usually don't vote to head to the polls this year, saying they could make the difference in the presidential race.

Republicans at the college have petitioned the student government to host a pro-Bush speaker of equal celebrity before the Nov. 2 election.

Quote from: MacGuffinRepublicans at the college have petitioned the student government to host a pro-Bush speaker of equal celebrity before the Nov. 2 election.

i dont know that such a person exists...

Moore Tour Raising Eyebrows, Ticket Sales

Bush-bashing "Fahrenheit 9/11" director Michael Moore is bringing his 60-city Slacker Uprising Tour to Utah, a famously Republican state. Not only that, he's going to one of Utah's most conservative towns, Orem, where his scheduled Oct. 20 appearance has many so-called Happy Valley residents fuming.

"It's really a major offense a slap in the face to the citizens of this valley," asserts Kay Anderson, a real estate broker who, waving a cashier's check, offered student leaders at Utah Valley State College $25,000 to rescind Moore's invitation.

"We won't be bribed," said Jim Bassi, student body president, who said the brouhaha guaranteed Moore a sold-out performance. "We spent $40,000 on Barbara Bush four years ago, and nobody raised an eyebrow about that."

Quote from: MacGuffin"It's really a major offense a slap in the face to the citizens of this valley," asserts Kay Anderson, a real estate broker who, waving a cashier's check, offered student leaders at Utah Valley State College $25,000 to rescind Moore's invitation.

That's just a little disgusting.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: MacGuffin"It's really a major offense a slap in the face to the citizens of this valley," asserts Kay Anderson, a real estate broker who, waving a cashier's check, offered student leaders at Utah Valley State College $25,000 to rescind Moore's invitation.

That's just a little disgusting.

And not a bit surprising.

Quote from: themodernage02

Quote from: MacGuffinRepublicans at the college have petitioned the student government to host a pro-Bush speaker of equal celebrity before the Nov. 2 election.

i dont know that such a person exists...

Bruce Willis?

Ron Silver.

Adam Sandler

i'm going to the U of A thing with my sister....it should be awesome.  8)

''Fahrenheit'' may be on TV election eve. Michael Moore hopes to bookend the pay-per-view screening with celebrity interviews
Source: EW

Michael Moore really, really, really wants you to see Fahrenheit 9/11 before the election, so much so that he's willing to give up his chances for a Best Documentary Oscar and some of his home video profits in order to schedule a pay-per-view airing of the film before voters go to the polls. Variety reports that a deal is imminent for the film to air on In Demand, America's biggest pay-per-view service, on Nov. 1, the night before the election. The film would be part of a three-hour special that would be bookended with fresh interviews with celebrities addressing the issues the movie raises and urging viewers to vote.

In Demand is already listing the event in the schedule posted on its website, but a Fahrenheit source says its not a done deal yet. Moore still has to get the approval of Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment, which released the movie on home video on Tuesday, and which would prefer to have more than a four-week window before the movie appears on TV and cuts into potential sales. The distributor had already grumbled about Moore's decision not to seek a Best Documentary Oscar, a prize that would have boosted sales; he made that decision specifically in order to pursue a pay-per-view booking before the election. Films that air on TV within nine months of their theatrical release are ineligible for the documentary prize, though not for other Oscars, including Best Picture.

In Demand has agreed to a few concessions to appease Columbia TriStar. It won't advertise or market the broadcast before Oct. 24. And it's calling the event ''The Michael Moore Pre-election Special,'' rather than Fahrenheit 9/11, to further distinguish it from the video. In any case, Columbia TriStar needn't worry too much about sales; in its first day in release, the film moved 2 million units, making it already the most successful documentary in home video history.

why doesn't he try to get it on a pbs station or something...only those that already agree with his message are going to pay for it.  if he wants to change the public's mind, he has to find a better way to broadcast it.

UNR Students Urged to Let Moore Speak

The president of the University of Nevada, Reno says "Fahrenheit 9/11" filmmaker Michael Moore "must be allowed to speak" when he visits the campus this week.

Moore's scheduled appearance Wednesday has prompted criticism from Republican student groups and some alumni. In response, UNR President John Lilley has written a letter underscoring the university's commitment to free speech.

"I encourage the students, faculty and community to respect Mr. Moore's right to express his views and to remind others of his right to express them," Lilley wrote last week. "Whatever you think of his views, he is now a guest of the university, and he must be allowed to speak."

Several donors and alumni are upset that the school's student government has rejected their offer of $100,000 to have Moore debate a conservative spokesman during his appearance.

Rick Reviglio, a Republican whose family has given about $1 million to the university, said his donations could cease if Moore, whose "Fahrenheit 9/11" blasts President Bush, doesn't debate a conservative during his visit.

"We have given generously to the university and to see that money being spent frivolously on the likes of people like Michael Moore is upsetting," said Reviglio, general manager of Western Nevada Supply in Reno.

Moore has been encouraging students to vote. His college tour, which ends Nov. 2 in Tallahassee, Fla., has drawn sellout crowds, as well as heated criticism at almost every stop.

Lilley said Moore's speech is expected to attract an audience of about 9,000 to the Lawlor Events Center.

The university's student government voted last month to contribute $6,300 in student-fee funds to Democracy for Nevada, a student political action committee and recognized campus club, which is sponsoring the appearance. The balance of Moore's $33,000 speaking fee will come from fund-raising projects and ticket sales.

Lilley said the student government also has made funds available to the College Republicans and interested parties so they can invite a speaker of a different point of view. He said those plans are pending.

Quote from: MacGuffinRick Reviglio, a Republican whose family has given about $1 million to the university, said his donations could cease if Moore, whose "Fahrenheit 9/11" blasts President Bush, doesn't debate a conservative during his visit.

Fuck Republicans. Either they use money to bribe people or they threaten to cut money they donate. It's always about their money.

moore is a great speaker, he talked for about an hour and a half, always being rudely interrupted by republicans in the crowd. in fact, at one point, he got so sick of them that he said a very direct "shut the fuck up!"

there were about 15,000 people there all in all. it was a good time

What kind of things were they saying to interrupt him?

just bought the dvd. invited two fraternity bros., two girls i work with, and my roomate to watch. their reactions:

fraternity bro #1: got so mad 20 minutes into it, dismissed it as "liberal propaganda bullshit." went into my room and did coke for an hour while playing internet poker on my computer
fraternity bro #2: said nothing the whole time (he would never admit it, but i knew he really was into it)
girl#1: was almost crying during the cut to black- planes hitting- people screaming sequence
girl#2: on the phone with her boyfriend the whole time. annoying.
roomate: was really stoned and couldn't handle a couple of parts.
me: cried (again) during the part when the black woman talks about losing her husband

My life would be complete if one day Roger Ebert writes:

The first ten minutes of this film were bland, uninspired, even offensive. I took a two hour break to get up and go do coke before playing internet poker on my friend's computer but when I re-entered the theater, Gallo's penis was in Shevigny's mouth. This was the worst film ever to screen at the Cannes film festival and Vincent Gallo is less entertaining than my colon.

we have a frat brother on this board?

Quote from: ©bradjust bought the dvd. invited two fraternity bros., two girls i work with, and my roomate to watch. their reactions:

fraternity bro #1: got so mad 20 minutes into it, dismissed it as "liberal propaganda bullshit." went into my room and did coke for an hour while playing internet poker on my computer
fraternity bro #2: said nothing the whole time (he would never admit it, but i knew he really was into it)
girl#1: was almost crying during the cut to black- planes hitting- people screaming sequence
girl#2: on the phone with her boyfriend the whole time. annoying.
roomate: was really stoned and couldn't handle a couple of parts.
me: cried (again) during the part when the black woman talks about losing her husband

Are they going to kick you out of the frat for liking it?

Quote from: petewe have a frat brother on this board?

cbrad has never made any secret of his brotherhood.

Quote from: StefenAre they going to kick you out of the frat for liking it?

cbrad spends more time with his frat brothers than his xixax family. Let's kick him out of here and ban him!

Quote from: ono.What kind of things were they saying to interrupt him?

the most popular ones were "stop the lies, stop the lies!" and of course "bush, cheney '04"

Quote from: El Duderino

Quote from: ono.What kind of things were they saying to interrupt him?

the most popular ones were "stop the lies, stop the lies!" and of course "bush, cheney '04"

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fscience%2Fhumanbody%2Fimages%2Fmind%2Fdisgust%2Fmorescience_disgust%2Fexpression.jpg&hash=87eeab7bbdfc33d6ed9e4401c880f31f5c1c7557)

Quote from: MacGuffin

Quote from: StefenAre they going to kick you out of the frat for liking it?

cbrad spends more time with his frat brothers than his xixax family. Let's kick him out of here and ban him!

actually, i just got kicked out myself! didn't pay dues, some other stuff.

but really, it all gets old super quick. i've made my friends with it, had my fun.

meanwhile, i still have you guys, right?  :(

Quote from: ©brad
meanwhile, i still have you guys, right?  :(

We need to talk.

Moore's Pre-Election TV Special Nixed

A cable pay-per-view company has decided not to show a three-hour election eve special with filmmaker Michael Moore that included a showing of his documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," which is sharply critical of President Bush.

The company, iN DEMAND, said Friday that its decision is due to "legitimate business and legal concerns." A spokesman would not elaborate.

Moore has just released his movie on DVD and was seeking a TV outlet for the film.

Earlier this week, trade publications said Moore was close to a deal with iN DEMAND for "The Michael Moore Pre-Election Special," which also would include interviews with politically active celebrities and admonitions to vote. The Nov. 1 special was to be available for $9.95.

Moore said Friday he signed a contract with the company in early September and is considering legal action. He said he believes iN DEMAND decided not to air the film because of pressure from "top Republican people."

"Apparently people have put pressure on them and they've broken a contract," Moore told The Associated Press.

"We've informed them of their legal responsibility and we all informed them that every corporate executive that has attempted to prohibit Americans from seeing this film has failed," Moore said. "There's been one struggle or another over this, but we've always come out on top because you can't tell Americans they can't watch this."

The New York-based iN DEMAND, owned by the Time Warner, Cox and Comcast cable companies, makes pay-per-view programming available in 28 million homes, or about one-quarter of the nation's homes with television.

In a statement, iN DEMAND said any legal action Moore might take against the company would be "entirely baseless and groundless."

This spring, Moore did battle with the Walt Disney Co., which refused to release "Fahrenheit 9/11" through its Miramax Films because it was too politically partisan for the company's taste.

Moore found other distributors. The movie, which attacks Bush's handling of the war on terrorists and war in Iraq and the Bush family's ties to Saudi royalty, earned more than $100 million at the box office.

In an interview with a Maine television station that aired this week, former President George H.W. Bush called Moore a "slimeball" and an expletive.

Also Friday, Moore offered to let Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. air the movie for free. Such a deal would likely get a chilly reception at Sinclair, a broadcaster with a reputation for conservative politics that plans to air a critical documentary about John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities on dozens of TV stations two weeks before the election.

lame

I haven't noticed anyone talk about it on here, so I'll mention it. Since I work at a video store I get free rentals. I saw FahrenHYPE 9/11 came and figured I'd see what was up with it. I think it offered some fair contrasts in regards to F9/11. There were definitely disposable portions, i.e Ann Coulter (IMO the Michael Moore of the right). I think the interviews with the people who were in F9/11 and were potrayed not as they would it, were the most valuable aspect of the film. Especially, the soldier whose limbs were blown off and feels like what he did was still an honorable thing, yet his potrayel in F9/11 wouldn't make it seem that . I think people on here should at least give it a chance to offer up a counter-response to F9/11.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fentertainment.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fent%2Fap%2F20041020%2Futdp105_michael_moore.sff.jpg&hash=aea1787d80c32d52567eb8d5994dfb121cf84969)

Filmmaker Michael Moore speaks during a news conference on the Utah Valley State College campus, Wednesday, Oct. 20, 2004, in Orem, Utah. Actress Rosanne Barr listens at rear. Moore's appearance has stirred fierce debate in Utah County, one of the nation's most conservative. Critics here say the student government misused public money by spending most of its $50,000 budget to book the ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' director, whose documentary painted President Bush as an inept leader who rushed the United States into war. The stop was Moore's 35th on his 61-city Slacker Uprising tour, a national trek aimed at mobilizing youth voters.

What a cute couple.

And I finally saw this film tonight.  Can't really say anything that hasn't been said, so I'll keep it brief.  The first part of the film made me sick at how fucked up everything really is.  I already knew it, but having it reaffirmed is validating and necessary, especially for those who don't understand it.  It's not as good a documentary as BFC, but it serves a purpose, and did the job well.  Only problem is it may not change too many people's minds, as has been said before.

Moore didn't bother me that much.  He seemed to know when to speak up, and his sarcastic voice is just his nature.  His voiceover, and his reserved approach in letting the material speak for itself really worked.  Yeah, things are just really fucked up (beheading, Lila Lipscomb (sp?), Fire Water Burn, arm guts, burnt faces).  Go vote for Kerry on November 2nd so we can get this fool out of the White House.

S. Africa Channel to Air 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

An independent television channel in South Africa will air Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" on the eve of the U.S. elections, the channel's publicist said Wednesday.

Following the Nov. 1 showing, M-Net will feature a panel discussion broadcast from its Johannesburg studio. The Nov. 2 presidential election pits U.S. President George W. Bush against Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry in a neck-and-neck race.

M-Net, the country's first pay channel, secured the rights for one exclusive screening from the film's distributors, Paramount, earlier this week.

"This is the first time in the history of South African television a movie will be broadcast on television while it is still on the circuit," Jan du Plessis, head of M-Net's program division, said in a statement.

"But 'Fahrenheit 9/11' has broken many rules and conventions, and we're delighted that we got permission to screen it at such an opportune time."

Moore has billed his documentary as his view of what happened to the United States after Sept. 11, 2001, and how Bush's administration allegedly used the event as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

The film won the top award and the longest standing ovation at this year's Cannes Film Festival. It also became the highest-grossing documentary in its opening weekend, with US$23,9 million (€18,7 million).

Bush Voted Year's Top Film Villain

American President George W. Bush has topped an unlikely poll in Britain - as this year's top screen villain. Bush won the dubious accolade for his unauthorized appearance in Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. The politician beat out the likes of Doc Ock, played by Alfred Molina, in Spider-Man 2; The Texas Chainsaw Massacre's Leatherface; Andy Serkis' Gollum from Lord Of The Rings trilogy; and Elle Driver, the assassin played by Daryl Hannah in Kill Bill. Almost 10,000 people voted in the poll, conducted by Total Film Magazine.
[/b]

Near the bottom:
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=5699&start=30

My apologies.

Website Offers Free Copies of 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

A San Bruno, CA man has admitted that he has spent $2,000 for high-speed Internet connectivity to his website so that people can download Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 for free. Marc Perkel told the London Independent that he does not expect to be sued for copyright infringement. "Michael Moore wants me to distribute this," he said, while admitting that he has never actually spoken to Moore. (Moore said in July: "I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labor.") So far, Perkel said, the film has been downloaded 337,756 times ( http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000468.html ). "But I don't count downloads, I count votes. How many voters are converted or how many people are motivated to actually vote? ... I am trying to prevent World War III and possibly the fall of civilization."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Available Online Nov. 1

An online pay-per-view showing of Michael Moore's controversial anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be released on the eve of the presidential election, the Internet movie provider CinemaNow announced Friday.

Viewers can see the film Monday by logging on to the company's Web site at 8 p.m. EST and paying $9.95, said the company's chief executive officer, Curt Marvis. It also will be made available in December.

"We're thrilled that the people behind 'Fahrenheit 9/11' have recognized the power of digital distribution," Marvis said.

He said Moore and Fellowship Adventure Group, one of the film's distributors, have agreed to donate their share of the profits from Monday's showing to a charity to benefit veterans.

A spokesman for Moore did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Moore had originally struck a deal with the cable pay-per-view company iN DEMAND to show the film as part of a three-hour election eve special, but the company announced two weeks ago that it was dropping the project because of "legitimate business and legal concerns."

Moore accused iN DEMAND of bowing to pressure from Bush supporters.

His film, released on video this month, attacks the president's handling of the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq and criticizes the Bush family's ties to the Saudi royal family. It has earned more than $100 million in theatrical release, a box office record for a documentary.

The Walt Disney Co. refused to release "Fahrenheit 9/11" to theaters through its Miramax Films because it was too politically partisan for the company's taste. Moore eventually released it through Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., IFC Films and Fellowship.

CinemaNow, majority owned by Lions Gate, offers releases from most major studios.

Moore moving on to Oscar voters after Tuesday's defeat
By Martin A. Grove, Hollywood Reporter

Moore's message: Considering the vigorous anti-Bush campaign waged by Michael Moore, it's clear that John Kerry wasn't the only loser Election Night.

Moore's tireless efforts to defeat Bush via "Fahrenheit 9/11" and a 60 city "Slacker Uprising Tour" failed miserably, leaving Moore with millions of dollars in movie profits but political egg on his face. After failing to sway American voters with his message, Moore's next challenge will be to get Academy voters to give "Fahrenheit" a best picture Oscar nomination.
 
Whether such an Academy nod is in the cards or not depends on who you ask. Some insiders are betting Moore will score because a best picture nod for "Fahrenheit" will give Hollywood liberals another chance to vote against Bush. Others counter that Academy members will reject Moore's manipulative and polarizing efforts just as the public did Tuesday and that they really don't want to have to sit through a repeat of his "Shame on you, Mr. Bush" 2003 Oscar night speech (although Moore has already promised in at least one interview to behave better than he did last year should he win again now).

Moreover, some insiders add, the global media giants that own Hollywood don't particularly want to antagonize the White House at a time when Republicans favor liberalizing media ownership laws. The FCC has not yet responded to a Philadelphia Federal Appeals Court order in June telling the Commission to reconsider the rules it adopted last year that would permit more media consolidation by allowing existing media giants to own more broadcast stations and also to own more newspapers and broadcasting properties in the same markets. The FCC can respond to this by appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court or by giving in to the Appeals Court and reversing its earlier position. With the GOP controlling the Commission through its chairman Michael Powell, any unhappiness the White House has with Hollywood could affect how the FCC proceeds regarding media consolidation.

In a perverse sort of way, although Hollywood supported Kerry, it's the Democrats who want to stop the consolidation of media ownership that's so important to studio owners like Viacom, News Corp., General Electric, Disney, Sony and Time Warner. The GOP's point of view on media consolidation favors the media giants. That's why Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone announced publicly that he was going to vote for Bush because he believed a Republican victory would be best for Viacom.

As things turned out, the majority of American voters agreed with Redstone that Bush was the country's best choice for president. Needless to say, achieving the opposite result was what Moore has dedicated his life to for the past few years. And going into Tuesday's balloting he had every reason to think he was going to make a big difference in how the vote went. It just didn't turn out that way.

Since opening late last June, "Fahrenheit" has grossed nearly $120 million in its domestic theatrical release through Lions Gate Films, IFC Films and Harvey and Bob Weinstein's Fellowship Adventure Group, making it the most successful documentary ever released. Its DVD and video release success through Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment saw it gross about $5.5 million in its first week of release in October. Although the distribution deal that Moore and Miramax co-chairman Harvey Weinstein negotiated with Disney last summer is a complex one that regulates how profits on the picture will be shared -- and with a lot of those profits going to a charity of Disney's choice -- it's a safe bet that Moore is profiting nicely from his film's success. And that's not meant in any way to be critical of him. Indeed, profits are what most filmmakers are in the business to achieve.

For Moore, however, making money with "Fahrenheit" wasn't the name of the game. What he set out to do was influence how people would vote for president. By portraying Bush as he does in the film, Moore hoped the American public would react by voting for Kerry or, at least, by voting against Bush. To achieve this, he orchestrated the theatrical release of "Fahrenheit" so it would be playing in theaters prior to July Fourth and prior to the national political conventions. He then arranged for a faster home entertainment release of the film than would typically have taken place.

To his credit, Moore also managed to get "Fahrenheit" shown the night before the election on the satellite Dish Network so that its 10 million-plus subscribers could view the picture at home. He also was able to make the picture available via streaming video on the Internet last Monday night to 30 million-plus homes through the video-on-demand service CinemaNow. And he worked out a pay-per-view deal with TVN Entertainment in Los Angeles to reach another million homes via carious cable systems. In all cases, the movie could be seen for a modest pay per view fee of $9.95. Clearly, Moore's premise was that if enough people had easy and relatively inexpensive access to his movie, they'd watch it and vote against Bush.

With the average movie ticket price at $6.03 in 2003, the latest statistics available from the MPAA, "Fahrenheit's" gross of roughly $120 million translates into about 19.9 million people having bought tickets to the picture. Add to that the DVD buyers and the video renters and the pay per view subscribers and we're probably talking about something like 30 million people (and possibly more) who paid money to get Moore's message. With approximately 116 million votes having been cast for president, Moore's "Fahrenheit" audience of around 30 million people works out to about 26 percent of that total.

To be fair, let me say right away that we have no way of knowing how many of the roughly 20 million people who paid to see "Fahrenheit" theatrically were of voting age or how many of them actually did vote. With the film's R rating, people under the age of 17 couldn't buy tickets. People who were 17 were able to see the movie, but they were still too young to vote. It's also possible or even likely that some of those who watched "Fahrenheit" at home on pay per view were under 17 and, therefore, not voters. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to say Moore was very successful in attracting a large audience of potential voters to see his movie and absorb his message before they voted.

In addition to his movie, Moore also tried to impact on the election by going on a grueling 60-city tour and speaking personally to numerous groups of voters in swing states like Ohio and Florida. In particular, Moore focused on reaching college students and encouraging them to vote. An Internet search of "Michael Moore Ohio" turns up page after page after page of references to appearances the filmmaker made throughout that key state in an effort to keep its 20 electoral votes from going to Bush as, of course, they did.

Here's just a small sampling of the extensive media coverage Moore's tour of Ohio received:

Toledo TV station WTOL said on its website: "With eight days until election day, Democrats and Republicans are hitting the campaign trail hard. Internationally known filmmaker Michael Moore rallied voters to vote President Bush out of office. It was the sound of a political revolution, as filmmaker Michael Moore was welcomed by thousands inside Toledo's SeaGate center. This is the 45th stop on Moore's 'Slacker Uprising' tour. 'We're here to invite those of you who have not voted in the past to give voting a try. You hold the power in your hands, you are the largest political power in the country,' said Moore.

The Business Journal in Youngstown, Ohio wrote about Moore's appearance at Youngstown State University: "Moore's visit to YSU for a get-out-the-vote rally was the 50th stop on his 60-city 'slacker uprising tour.' Moore, who is supporting Sen. John Kerry for president, is targeting college age citizens, who typically don't vote in great numbers...Moore pointed out that Ohio has disproportionately lost jobs under Bush -- 230,000 in four years -- and he challenged Kerry not to forget economically devastated areas such as his hometown of Flint, Mich. and Youngstown, which he described as 'the Flint of Ohio.'"

The Cincinnati Enquirer wrote about Moore's visit there: "Filmmaker and political provocateur Michael Moore chided and derided President Bush, Republicans and the news media during a raucous speech at the University of Cincinnati...More than 2,000 people -- most of them UC students -- crowded the outdoor rally, part of Moore's month-long 60-city 'Slacker Tour' to college campuses in 20 battleground states."

In a report about Moore's University of Cincinnati appearance WKRC-TV told viewers: "The controversial figure behind 'Fahrenheit 9/11' brought his message to the Tri-State. Michael Moore made stop number 48 on his 60 city tour today, visiting voters at the New Friendship Baptist Church in Avondale and (at) UC. Moore encouraged non-voters to go to the polls next week and spoke at great length about what he says are the wrongdoings of the Republican Party..."

The Lantern newspaper at Ohio State University wrote: "When Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker Michael Moore walked into the Ohio Union yesterday to speak to an audience of more than 450 people, he probably didn't anticipate he would be giving his speech twice. In addition to the crowd waiting for him in the East Ballroom, he was met by 400 more standing in front of closed doors, who were told they couldn't go in. To appease the masses, he gave a mini version of his speech on the front lawn of the Union. His message for both remained the same: remove President George W. Bush from the White House because 'people of this country don't like being lied to.'"

Mark Urycki reported on Kent State radio station WKSU that: "Kent State was stop number 44 on Michael Moore's tour. He's recovering from pneumonia from keeping a grueling schedule of trying to speak in two cities per day during the entire month of October. His message is simply 'get out to vote and vote for John Kerry.' Moore told reporters beforehand that he's been to Kent State a couple of times before to honor other war protestors who died there in 1970...He's so well known that Republicans have derided Moore as one of the 'Hollywood elite.' In fact, he came with comedian Roseanne Barr and both laughed at that term and pointed out that all the Hollywood stars elected to office have been Republicans. Moore said they both come from working class families...Moore's recent anti-war film 'Fahrenheit 9/11' has made him a hero of the left and a target of the right. The (campus) library has had so much demand to borrow the DVD that they had planned to show it in their theater. That was halted two weeks ago when a Bush supporter filed a lawsuit claiming the library was taking a political stand. Michael Moore only found out about the case from reporters in Kent...."

There are many more pages of reports about Moore's Ohio appearances that could be cited here, but I think these are enough to make the point that Moore pulled out all the stops in his efforts to reach Ohio voters and persuade them to vote for John Kerry. At the end of the day, both Moore and Kerry failed to convince enough people to turn their backs on Bush.

Looking ahead, Moore's next forum for attacking Bush could well be the Academy Awards. With "Fahrenheit" positioned as a contender for best picture rather than for best documentary feature, Moore will be fighting for Oscar consideration in the coming months. Having Harvey Weinstein working with him on behalf of "Fahrenheit" is clearly a huge help as Weinstein basically wrote the playbook on contemporary Oscar campaigning. Whether Moore and Weinstein, along with Lions Gate and IFC, can get Academy voters to do what the voting public refused to do Tuesday remains to be seen, but it certainly will be interesting to observe as the awards season unfolds.

Moore to shoot sequel to 'Fahrenheit'

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Michael Moore plans a follow-up to "Fahrenheit 9/11," his hit documentary that assails President Bush over the handling of the September 11 attacks and the war on terrorism, according to a Hollywood trade paper.

Moore told Daily Variety that he and Harvey Weinstein, the Miramax boss who produced the film, hope to have "Fahrenheit 9/11 1/2" ready in two to three years.

"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them," Moore was quoted in Thursday's edition of Variety. "They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now."

A spokesman for Fellowship Adventure Group, formed by Weinstein and brother Bob to help distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11," did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

"Fahrenheit 9/11," which won top honors at May's Cannes Film Festival, became the first documentary to top $100 million at the domestic box office. Moore, who won the documentary Academy Award for "Bowling for Columbine," is pushing "Fahrenheit 9/11" in the best-picture category for the upcoming Oscars.

The issues for the follow-up film will remain the same, Iraq and terrorism, Moore said.

"The official mourning period is over today and there is a silver lining: George W. Bush is prohibited by law from running again," Moore said.

following the law that all blockbusters must have sequels.

Quote from: themodernage02following the law that all blockbusters must have sequels.

Maybe Moore will make an exposé on himself?

Teacher Suspended for Showing Moore Film

A community college instructor who was suspended for showing "Fahrenheit 9/11" in class the week before the presidential election is offering no apologies and says he was unfairly punished.

Davis March showed the Michael Moore documentary critical of President Bush to his film class. Administrators pulled the plug on the movie with about 20 minutes left when March tried to show it to English composition students.

"This story is now about academic freedom ... the movie is ancient history," said March, who served a four-day suspension and returned Nov. 2 to Rowan-Cabarrus Community College, about 45 miles northeast of Charlotte.

School officials said March disobeyed orders by refusing to meet with administrators before showing the film, but March said no edict to seek permission had been issued.

"If I'm wrong about this, I've been wrong my entire career," said March, 54, who has taught at the school for two decades. "If I backed down, how could I go back into the classroom and face my students?"

The school's executive vice president, Ann Hovey, said the board of trustees has a clear policy of nonpartisanship regarding political issues. She said college President Richard Brownell has issued several memos on the topic.

One dated Oct. 25 stated that college employees may not use "the classroom or college environment as a platform to promote their own personal, religious or political views or to advocate for specific political candidates."

Hovey said March asked school officials in August if he could send out fliers promoting a screening of Moore's movie. The school rejected that request.

"He was insistent about wanting to show it before the election, which implied some possible political intent," Hovey said. She said March erred by not also presenting an opposing view to the film.

"We are not about trying to suppress critical thinking or academic thought," she said. "But if you are trying to promote critical thinking, then both sides need to be presented."

Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education described the school's actions as deplorable.

"It's true the university cannot endorse a candidate, but the distinction of what a university professor can do is increasingly getting blurred," he said.

Moore doesn't look back
The controversial filmmaker is taking it easy post-election. Source: Los Angeles Times

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calendarlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2004-11%2F15199595.jpg&hash=b96040c3dd2dc550ceac69e43679f89471e7ce36)

Chopping logs. Taking long walks in the woods outside his home in Northern Michigan. Reading the latest Robert B. Parker detective novel. Going to church on Sunday. And catching up on sleep.

That's how filmmaker Michael Moore is spending his time these days. He's no longer sparring with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly or trying to sway opinion with his Bush-bashing "Fahrenheit 9/11," but is instead watching "Desperate Housewives" with his wife, Kathleen Glynn.

Taking a post-election breather before launching into an Oscar campaign that he hopes will earn his documentary a best picture nomination, Moore is also preparing to work on a new documentary about the worlds of healthcare and pharmaceuticals, tentatively titled "Sicko," after the start of the new year.

Since the election, the highly visible Moore has retreated to his two-bedroom cabin on a four-acre spread in Michigan, where he and his wife are adjusting to life without their 23-year-old daughter, Natalie, who recently moved to the Bay Area.

On Sunday, Moore, 50, headed to the biannual meeting of the Democratic Party, where the mood, he reports, was "remarkably upbeat." The last gathering had only four participants, he said, and this time there were 40. A big fan of movies ("I go to everything"), he has recently caught up with "The Incredibles" and the "Bridget Jones" sequel and drove 45 minutes to the nearest six-plex to see "National Treasure."

There's also a potential follow-up, Moore said, to "Fahrenheit," the highest-grossing feature-length documentary ever with $250 million in ticket sales worldwide. The same threesome that backed the documentary — Miramax co-chairmen Harvey and Bob Weinstein, Lions Gate Entertainment and IFC Films — is behind him again, giving him "a pretty good foot in the door," he said. Though no deal is in place for "Fahrenheit 9/11½," they're all committed to the project in theory.

The original, meanwhile, won't be considered for an Oscar in the best documentary category, although it had been considered the front-runner (he won that award in 2003 for "Bowling for Columbine").

He became ineligible for the documentary category with his decision to maximize the impact of his film by airing it on TV before the election. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences prohibits films eligible for best documentaries from being televised within nine months of release.

Plans to air "Fahrenheit" as part of a pre-election special never materialized, though. A subsequent arrangement was worked out with DISH Network, the satellite TV company owned by EchoStar Communications Corp., and the movie was available for download on the Web. Though it wasn't what he'd hoped for, Moore says he'd take the same gamble again.

"The film is still eligible in other categories" including editing, direction and best picture, he said. "No documentary has ever been nominated for best picture, so that would be a great boost for all nonfiction filmmakers."

While he's depressed that President Bush was reelected, he said the Republican victory could help at Oscar time. He theorizes that if Sen. John Kerry had won, Hollywood — and the country — would want to move forward instead of rubbing salt in the wounds. With four more years of Bush, the best picture vote could give the movie industry one more referendum, he points out. But he insists that such handicapping is not in the forefront of his mind.

Part of the Democratic loss, he said, was due to the party's inability to come up with a simple story that spoke to the masses. Republicans, on the other hand, were deft in their creation of Bush as a post-9/11 hero who protected the country from further attack. Moore counters the notion that the entertainment industry's support worked against Kerry at the polls. Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam and the Dixie Chicks collectively prevented what would have been a landslide victory for Bush, he claims. It was star power that put "The Terminator" in the governor's seat in the bluest of states — and thrust Ronald Reagan, George Murphy and Sonny Bono into the national arena. The Democrats should embrace the entertainment community, he says, instead of running away.

"The way to win is to run someone people are familiar with, and trust: Tom Hanks, Paul Newman, Martin Sheen," he said.

What of charges that "Fah-renheit" is not a documentary but an op-ed piece, or even propaganda? All movies have a point of view, the director said — that's "artistic vision." "Why didn't I point out the good stuff about Bush? Because the president has gotten a blank check from the press and we see that every night on the news."

If he wins another statuette, Moore says, half in jest, his wife, who also produced the film, will give the acceptance speech in order to maintain the peace. His antiwar comments at the 2003 awards triggered a chorus of cheers and boos.

Moore recalls an incident from that night: A crew member came out of nowhere to mutter an expletive in his ear.

"That guy came up to me last month on 'The Tonight Show,' where he's working now, and held out his hand," Moore said. " 'You were right,' he told me ... 'We weren't told the truth.' "

The Truth According to Moore, however, has been pouring out nonstop. His books, including "Stupid White Men ... and Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!" have been bestsellers. And by his own estimates, he continues to get 6,000 to 10,000 e-mails a day from supporters.

While he has no problem being a "designated hitter" in the political game, he's not interested in being the coach or becoming most valuable player.

"Being a figurehead is a responsibility and a burden," he said. "Still, people have gone to my movies and read my books and I'm not going to let them down. We got to the 3-yard line — only 3 million votes short. We're not going to pick up the ball and go home. Democracy, in the end, isn't a spectator sport, but a participatory event."

And the year's least intriguing celebrity is ...
Web site lists 'the coldest people in Hollywood'
Source: CNN Wednesday, November 24, 2004


LOS ANGELES, California -- Controversial movie director Michael Moore, whose anti-President Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11" touched off a firestorm of controversy, has topped an annual list of Hollywood's least intriguing celebrities.

The outspoken documentary maker, seemingly ubiquitous during the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign urging Bush's defeat, ranks Number 1 on this year's "Frigid 50" published by online movie magazine FilmThreat.com.

Says the Web site: "Michael Moore's box office smash did two things: it mobilized like-minded Americans in a bid to vote a Democrat into office, and it galvanized the opposition in a bid to re-elect Bush. Bush won."

The Web site, known for an anti-establishment take on the entertainment industry, said its list named the stars it found to be the "least-inspiring, least-intriguing people in Hollywood."

Ranked No. 2 was actress Halle Berry, who followed up her Oscar-winning turn in "Monster's Ball" with less critically lauded roles in such films as "Gothica" and "Catwoman."

Says the Web site: "If she makes any more muck along the lines of Gothica and Catwoman, the Academy should send Berry a self-addressed stamped envelope and a letter requesting the return of her Oscar."

Summing up all the list, the Web site says: "The Frigid 50 ice pack have left audiences cold with their overbearing personalities, poor career choices and chronic inability to stop making fools of themselves," the site said.

Filmthreat.com adds: "Just so you understand how utterly meaningless these 'power' lists are, try a little test. And you can do this test in the privacy of your own home.

"Just dig up an old issue of 'Entertainment Weekly' and 'Premiere' from, say, 2002. Then read the 'power' list from that year. See what we mean? Meaningless!"

Rest of the Top Ten:

3. MICHAEL EISNER. Says the site: "Did Dopey give Eisner a blood transfusion? If anything, it has not been a boring year: a board of directors revolt lead by Roy Disney, a hostile takeover bid by Comcast, public spats with Pixar and Miramax, the biggest line-up of turkeys this side of a Thanksgiving dinner ('Home on the Range,' 'The Alamo,' 'Hidalgo'), and the idiotic desire to jettison the one hit film financed by Disney: 'Fahrenheit 9/11.'"

4. M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN & THE BIG SURPRISE TWIST REDUX. Says the site: "The jig is up, Night. The lame Sci Fi Channel 'documentary' fooled no one -- just like no one had patience for yet another labored 'surprise' ending in 'The Village.'"

5. BEN STILLER/OWEN WILSON. Says the site: "Ben Stiller seems to have a lock on mass-produced mediocrity. In the past year ... 'Duplex,' 'Along Came Polly,' 'Starsky & Hutch,' 'Envy' and 'Dodgeball' one after the other, each with a harsh dull thud."

6. NICOLE KIDMAN. Says the site: "Did Tom Cruise get the Scientologists to slap a hex on her career? The perpetually stunning star followed her Oscar triumph (in Jimmy Durante make-up) in 'The Hours' with hideous junk where her beauty made no sense in the midst of the gritty stories -- 'The Human Stain' (as a glamorous cleaning lady) 'Cold Mountain' (as a glamorous Dixie chick), 'Dogville' (as a glamorous fugitive) and 'The Stepford Wives' (as a glamorous Stepford Wife). Kidman's always lovely to look at, but.... "

7. REESE WITHERSPOON. Says the site: "Little Miss Cutesy-Wutesy is perfectly acceptable in marzipan confectionaries like 'Sweet Home Alabama' and the 'Legally Blonde' franchise -- and anyone who loves dum-dum diversions can enjoy her giggles and wiggles in these films. But...."

8. JIMMY FALLON. Says the site: "The guy most notorious for blowing his lines on 'Saturday Night Live' crossed over to the big screen in 'Taxi' -- and nobody cared."

9. PARIS HILTON. Says the site: "It's not surprising that Hilton has started turning up in films; it's all part of her evil plan for absolute world domination."

10. BEN AFFLECK Says the site: "Poor Ben. He's been cursed with the incredible shrinking career: dumped by J.Lo, ignored by audiences, and reduced to making guest shots on TV celebrity poker tournaments. Affleck's career has devolved beyond sick humor into the realm of catastrophic pity-inducement."

What the fuck is a FilmThreat?

Isn't it a little silly to say Michael Moore is "unintriguing"?

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanIsn't it a little silly to say Michael Moore is "unintriguing"?

And he made it on the same list as Halle Berry, Owen Wilson, and Nicole Kidman.

How the fuck are they unintriguing?

Guys, they explain away their little sense of humor right in that article:

Quote from: The article clearly
Summing up all the list, the Web site says: "The Frigid 50 ice pack have left audiences cold with their overbearing personalities, poor career choices and chronic inability to stop making fools of themselves," the site said.

Filmthreat.com adds: "Just so you understand how utterly meaningless these 'power' lists are, try a little test. And you can do this test in the privacy of your own home.

"Just dig up an old issue of 'Entertainment Weekly' and 'Premiere' from, say, 2002. Then read the 'power' list from that year. See what we mean? Meaningless!"

Not saying it's funny. Just get over it, it's a stupid list.

Quote from: Gamblor not so gone.Guys, they explain away their little sense of humor right in that article:

Quote from: The article clearly
Summing up all the list, the Web site says: "The Frigid 50 ice pack have left audiences cold with their overbearing personalities, poor career choices and chronic inability to stop making fools of themselves," the site said.

Filmthreat.com adds: "Just so you understand how utterly meaningless these 'power' lists are, try a little test. And you can do this test in the privacy of your own home.

"Just dig up an old issue of 'Entertainment Weekly' and 'Premiere' from, say, 2002. Then read the 'power' list from that year. See what we mean? Meaningless!"

Not saying it's funny. Just get over it, it's a stupid list.

True, but idiotic media sources make it seem like it's some national poll.

Moore Campaigns for People's Choice Award

Filmmaker Michael Moore is back on the campaign trail trolling for votes this time, for the People's Choice Awards.

His documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" an unlikely summer blockbuster was one of the films selected in the "favorite movie" category of the annual populist prize ceremony. On Thursday he posted a letter on his Web site to mobilize fans to cast their ballots for the film.

"Now, normally I wouldn't make a very big deal out of something like this," Moore wrote. He said he was inspired to make his appeal after a group of leading Republicans took out ads in USA Today and Daily Variety that he said included "a not-so-subtle threat to the Academy Awards voters that, in essence, said don't even THINK about nominating 'Fahrenheit 9/11' for Best Picture."

Moore said the People's Choice nomination proves the message of his film still resonates with people across the country, even though President Bush won re-election.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" attacked Bush's rationale for the war in Iraq and accused him and his administration of fostering fear for political gain. Moore spent the weeks before the election traveling across the country to urge Americans to vote Bush out of office.

In his letter, Moore said the movie still speaks "the truth about Iraq, Bush, terror and fear. The election has not altered or made irrelevant, unfortunately, a single one of these issues."

He added, "I promise, if we win, to give a nice and polite speech," a reference to the vitriolic speech he gave against the Iraq war last year when he accepted the Academy Award for best documentary for "Bowling for Columbine," a look at gun violence in America.

Other People's Choice nominees for favorite movie include "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," "The Incredibles," "Shrek 2" and "Spider-Man 2." Nominees were compiled from about 6,000 people across the country through the magazine Entertainment Weekly.

Moore also is pushing "Fahrenheit 9/11" for an Oscar in the best picture category, after saying he would not submit it in the lower-profile documentary field.

MOORE SET TO CLAIM VICTORY AT PEOPLE'S CHOICE AWARDS, LIVE, CBS, TONIGHT...

January 9, 2005 -- Lefty filmmaker Michael Moore has been tipped he's going to win the People's Choice Award tonight, Tom O'Neil reports at goldderby.com. This is the first year these awards - which insiders have long suspected notifies winners in advance - resorted to online voting instead of a Gallup poll.

Tinseltown has been buzzing about organized campaigns on behalf of Moore's Bush-bashing "Fahrenheit 9/11," which goes up against the likes of "Spider-Man 2" and "The Incredibles" for favorite movie, as well as for Mel Gibson's equally controversial "The Passion of the Christ," which is up for best drama.

Moore's flacks didn't return Post movie critic Lou Lumenick's calls, but sources confirmed he is snubbing tonight's New York Film Critics Circle awards to attend the Hollywood ceremony, where polar opposite Gibson is also expected to make an appearance.

Member of N.Y. Film Critics Circle Blasts Michael Moore for No-Show

The lead film critic of the New York Daily News has taken Michael Moore to task for ditching an appearance at the New York Film Critics Circle dinner awards ceremony where he would have picked up a Best Documentary award for Fahrenheit 9/11 and instead flying to California to receive the favorite movie award on the televised People's Choice Awards. Saying that Moore's actions deserved an award for "Slight of the Year," Jack Mathews commented, "He chose the nonaward over the award, the patronizing TV show over a dinner with peers, the photo op over the credibility op. He chose to patronize the public as bastions of good taste, and to pretend that his anti-Bush screed had captured the fancy of a nation." Mathews remarked that it is unclear to him how Fahrenheit won the top award for favorite film. "Typically," he noted,"the film that sells the most tickets wins this award." Other analysts have pointed out that this year the producers of the show altered its selection procedure, ending their deal with the Gallup organization to conduct a scientific poll of moviegoers and instead conducting a vote on the Internet, subjecting the voting process to politicking and the equivalent of ballot-box stuffing.

the way Jack Mathews is speaking in this article, it looks as though Moore made the right choice in going to the PCA.

Quote from: MacGuffin quoting an article
He chose to patronize the public as bastions of good taste

As much as I couldn't give a crap about awards and such, this still cracked me up.  

All awards are useless except as publicity devices, correct?  So Moore chose to be present for the one that would give more publicity rather than the one that was "important" because it was from...  er, critics and New York.

It just cracks me up.

2LB

Quote from: Two Lane Blacktop

Quote from: MacGuffin quoting an article
He chose to patronize the public as bastions of good taste

As much as I couldn't give a crap about awards and such, this still cracked me up.  

All awards are useless except as publicity devices, correct?  So Moore chose to be present for the one that would give more publicity rather than the one that was "important" because it was from...  er, critics and New York.

It just cracks me up.

2LB

Actually, some of the awards are cool. The SAG awards every year are a pretty good barometer of the films for that year. Critics choice awards are good too. Though, neither of them get much publicity so I can see where you're coming from.

Moore Gets No Love From Old High School

Oscar on the shelf or not, Michael Moore is not getting much respect at his old high school. Despite his fame and many honors, the filmmaker has been rejected all four times that he has been nominated for Davison High School's Hall of Fame.

"Would you want him as a role model? Would you want your son or daughter to be like him?" asked Don Hammond, a member of the Hall of Fame selection committee. "I haven't talked to anybody yet who's for him. The word to describe Michael Moore is embarrassing. He embarrasses everybody."

Ryan Eashoo disagrees. The 1997 Davison High graduate has spent 80 hours the last two weeks and $600 of his own money trying to get Moore elected.

"We've been blacklisted," Eashoo, 25, told the Detroit Free Press. "I'm a huge Michael Moore fan. He's a great producer, great filmmaker, always sticking up for minorities. He's kind of an underdog."

So far, Eashoo has 300 signed nominations of Moore. His goal is 2,000 by Feb. 1. The committee meets Feb. 11 to choose its inductees.

Eastwood Threatens Moore

Clint Eastwood has chillingly warned documentary-maker Michael Moore he'll face certain death if he ever points his camera at him. Picking up a Special Film-making Achievement prize for Million Dollar Baby at the National Board Of Review Awards dinner in New York on Tuesday, Eastwood urged the Fahrenheit 9/11 director to avoid making him the subject of a future project if he values his life. However, Eastwood - a staunch supporter of the Republicans - did admit he and Moore have a shared view of how American society should operate. He said, "Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common - we both appreciate living in a country where there's free expression. But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera - I'll kill you." And when Eastwood noticed the audience had erupted in laughter to his threat, he emphasized, "I mean it." However, Moore's representatives insist the comments were intended as a joke: "Michael laughed along with everyone else, and took Mr Eastwood's comments in the lighthearted spirit in which they were given."

A National Guardsman who lost his right arm near the shoulder and left arm above the wrist in Iraq filed suit Friday in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, against filmmaker Michael Moore for allegedly including him in "Fahrenheit 9/11" without his permission, claiming defamation and invasion of privacy. Sergeant Peter Damon, who was injured in October 2003, was featured in a 10-second clip in Moore's documentary that depicted him awaiting surgery at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. But those 10 seconds of footage were from an interview with NBC News' Brian Williams, and Damon claims that he was never asked, nor did he consent, for the interview to be used elsewhere. Damon says he disagrees politically with Moore and that the interview made it appear as if he were complaining about the war effort instead of talking about the pain he felt when he lost his arms. (Moore has denied any intention to demean the service of U.S. troops through the film.) Damon's seeking $100 million and also named Harvey and Robert Weinstein, Miramax, Lionsgate and NBC in the suit. The Weinsteins, NBC and Lionsgate had no comment.

$100 million? what the fuck.

10 seconds, 100 million, thats like 10 million dollars a second!  not even TOM CRUISE makes that kinda money!

why did it take him two years to realize he wanted to file suit..

Because he didn't want to be just another person on the "I hate Michael Moore" bandwagon at the time.  He wanted to make sure that everyone knows that his lawsuit is genuine and not some cheap ploy to exploit Moore's fame for his own personal gain.

If the footage is from an interview that Moore paid to use isn't he covered?

Quote from: RegularKarate on June 01, 2006, 01:07:46 PM
If the footage is from an interview that Moore paid to use isn't he covered?

yes, he should be. the stock house from which he bought the footage from should be liable.

did george bush want to be in the movie?

Take a look at the clip. The guy is simply talking about the pain of his injuries... he says nothing that could even be construed as political. He is, however, followed by someone else who does say something political. Maybe that's the complaint.  :yabbse-thumbdown:

I've been waiting for a "Michael Moore lied!" revelation that's actually true, and I'm somewhat disappointed that, yet again, this isn't one. It's simply an effort to make Michael Moore look anti-veteran, which he will, to some, no matter how he responds.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackmagic on June 06, 2006, 11:35:22 AM
Take a look at the clip. The guy is simply talking about the pain of his injuries... he says nothing that could even be construed as political. He is, however, followed by someone else who does say something political. Maybe that's the complaint.  :yabbse-thumbdown:

Iraq veteran sues Moore over 9/11 film

A veteran who lost both arms in the war in Iraq is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Middleborough, is asking for damages because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation," according to the lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court last week.

Damon, 33, claims that Moore never asked for his consent to use a clip from an interview Damon did with NBC's "Nightly News."

He lost his arms when a tire on a Black Hawk helicopter exploded while he and another reservist were servicing the aircraft on the ground. Another reservist was killed in the explosion.

In his interview with NBC, Damon was asked about a new painkiller the military was using on wounded veterans. He claims in his lawsuit that the way Moore used the film clip in "Fahrenheit 9/11" — Moore's scathing 2004 documentary criticizing the Bush administration and the war in Iraq — makes him appear to "voice a complaint about the war effort" when he was actually complaining about "the excruciating type of pain" that comes with the injury he suffered.

In the movie, Damon is shown lying on a gurney, with his wounds bandaged. He says he feels likes he's "being crushed in a vise."

"But they (the painkillers) do a lot to help it," he says. "And they take a lot of the edge off of it."

Damon is shown shortly after U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., is speaking about the Bush administration and says, "You know, they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."

Damon contends that Moore's positioning of the clip just after the congressman's comments makes him appear as if he feels like he was "left behind" by the Bush administration and the military.

In his lawsuit, Damon says he "agrees with and supports the President and the United States' war effort, and he was not left behind."

He said that, while at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center recovering from his wounds, he had surgery and physical therapy, learned to use prosthetics and live independently. He also said that Homes For Our Troops, a not-for-profit group, built him a house with handicapped accessibility.

"The work creates a substantially fictionalized and falsified implication as a wounded serviceman who was left behind when Plaintiff was not left behind but supported, financially and emotionally, by the active assistance of the President, the United States and his family, friends, acquaintances and community," Damon says in his lawsuit.

Moore did not immediately return calls seeking comment Wednesday. A message was left for Moore at a personal number in New York and with HarperCollins, publisher of Moore's 2002 book, "Stupid White Men...And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!"

A spokesman for Miramax Film Corp., also named as a defendant, did not immediately return a call.

Damon did not immediately respond to a request for an interview.

"It's upsetting to him because he's lived his life supportive of his government, he's been a patriot, he's been a soldier, and he's now being portrayed in a movie that is the antithesis of all of that," Damon's lawyer, Dennis Lynch, said.

Damon is seeking $75 million in damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation. His wife is suing for an additional $10 million in damages because of the mental distress caused to her husband, Lynch said.

Quote from: Macphisto on June 06, 2006, 01:19:43 PM
Damon is seeking $75 million in damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation. His wife is suing for an additional $10 million in damages because of the mental distress caused to her husband, Lynch said.

He's an American, all right.