Saw the Theatre Trailer for Fahrenheit 9/11

[Moogs]

While I'm no Michael Moore groupie, this movie looks to be quite interesting and more than just a slam on Bush (actually Bush appears to unknowingly slam himself but I won't spoil it for any who haven't seen some of the clips), but also on Congress and their bass-akwards policymaking practices. I'm sure some of it is going to be exaggerated but there are also some things there which are brutally honest, nausea-inducing truths.

Not things that surprised me personally, but things which are going to shock the average Joe and Jane who never bother to read the papers or think critically about how their government operates.

I have a distinct sense that this movie has some surprise clips in it from Bush and others which are going to end up smearing their reputations badly. Sort of in the same way Moore did with (I think) the Ford plant closures and such back in the 80s. It was pretty obvious none of the big whigs knew what was coming back then, and I think some important people got caught with their pants down here a well. I'm confident the very best examples are not in the trailer, as well.

I would not be at all surprised if Mr. Kerry has seen this movie (or knows what's in it), and has just been laying low until it comes out. Planning his talking points and strategy around the disruption this movie is going to cause. For all his egomania, Michael Moore may have done something really good here. For all Americans, not just those who call themselves Democrats (I'm sure he jabs a few of them too).

[pscates2.0]

Yes, I can't wait to see it... :rolleyes:

Rush = Fat, overbearing blowhard with an agenda, given to overstatement and fact-bending to suit his views?

Moore = ?

You tell me. Limbaugh with a better understanding of lighting and focus lenses?

;)

Only difference I can see is that Rush is truly funny (when he needs to be) and actually has a loyal, devoted fan-base.

I did enjoy "Roger and Me" A LOT, many years ago. Those scenes with Bob Eubanks, Pat Boone and Anita Bryant were quite funny, in an "OUCH!" kinda way. And that poor family evicted from their home...that scene really grabbed me because I felt so sorry for them. And the jailhouse benefit? Classic.

:lol:

But I think as much as Rush has mellowed over the years (and has been humbled on a couple of occasions), Moore has gotten more shrill and obnoxious. I can't stand the sight of the man and seem to automatically tune him out when I see him pop up because I just know what's coming...

I do think a "Inside the Actors Studio" episode with him would be interesting, if only to see my two most-detested human beings sitting side-by-side, trying to out-idiot each other.

:p

Throw Carville in there, standing behind them - playing the washboard or something - and you'd hit the trifecta.

:)

[Moogs]

Oh there's no doubt Moore carries a heavy liberal bias, except there's one key difference between Rush and Moore, and that is, that Moore depends on the words, answers and actions of other people to make his films. [snip] He simply puts forth an idea or question to people on the other side of the fence, and films the result. I'm sure he leaves some stuff on the editing room floor but who doesn't?

[If Bush is caught saying some irresonsible or insensitive or illogical thing, you can blame no one but Bush for that. It doesn't matter that he didn't think the soundbites would make it into the public. Similarly if he interviews a Congressman and the Congressman's answers reflect an ignorant or uncaring attitude, again you can't fault Moore. He may goad people into some of these things, them thinking it won't make it into a movie theatre... but they still said the things they said. There's no refuting it.]

Rush just sits there and runs his mouth the whole time. You never see the guy out on the streets doing interviews or taking critical looks at things. He never gives the other side a fair shake. He's a mouth piece and nothing more IMO. Whatever the Republicans are doing, Rush will defend it, good or bad. He's a television troll in a sense....

:)

Moore OTOH, I don't see defending Democrats at every turn.

So, there are some real differences. I think Rush is a total hack, while Moore, despite his own shortcomings, at least produces some truly thought-provoking films / interviews where you can make up your own mind as to the legitimacy or logic of the answers given.

[pscates2.0]

...except there's one key difference between Rush and Moore, and that is, that Moore depends on the words, answers and actions of other people...

Whatever the Republicans are doing, Rush will defend it, good or bad.He's a television troll in a sense....

I don't mean this in a bad way, but you don't know what you're talking about, and can't possibly have ever listened to Rush for more than 5-10 minutes, because you are completely wrong on both counts.

:)

Rush makes me laugh hardest (and is one of the reasons I enjoy listening, when I do) when he plays a sound clip of a politician, celebrity, etc. saying something foolish or offensive, and then commenting on it. But sometimes, there's no need to even comment. Just a slight chuckle and a call for a commercial is all you'll hear. I've never heard him put words in someone's mouth or speak for them...he doesn't NEED to. With his resources, he seems to have quite an inventory - and access to - audio clips from all types.

:D

Half of what Rush DOES is based on playing clips or reading articles, interviews or excerpts from a statement, press conference, magazine, newspaper, etc. of what someone is doing or has said! And he does it well. Better than any of his half-ass imitators clogging up the airwaves (Savage, Boortz, Hannity, etc.). No talent hacks, those three.

As for your second point, he routinely rips the GOP when they're not upholding conservative principles. Rush is less a GOP monkey than a staunch conservative...party be damned. HUGE difference. Now, Sean Hannity...THAT'S a Republican shill and I can't stand him because HE will kiss the GOP's butt all live long day, even when they're so richly deserving of criticism and/or ridicule...as they so often are.

:rolleyes:

I've been listening to Rush for well over a decade - sometimes going months of not listening at all and sometimes, as in an election year - or in an interesting, critical time like the one we are currently in - streaming his show to my G4 while at work and listening almost daily, and he's bashed the GOP, Bush, Schwarzenegger, McCain, Lott, Santorum, the current administration, prominent Republicans, right-leaning pundits and columnists, etc. PLENTY. When they deserve it.

Conversely, he's heaped praise on men like Senator Lieberman and Zell Miller and other Democrats for daring to cross their party, coming across quite conservative on issues of defense, culture, etc. I think he's actually quite a bit more even-handed and fair than he's been painted. It's been my experience - again, of a decade - that there's a direct correlation between how much one hates Rush and how little they've actually tuned in.

:D

I think Rush leans more toward Buckley and Reagan (who was known to be quite critical of fellow Republicans when he thought they weren't doing the right thing) than a hollow, GOP cheerleader. I get the impression Rush doesn't give a huge damn for the GOP because, lately, they seem to be quite useless, watered down and eager to sell their soul for a vote.

Anyway, the things you say are the things people who honestly never truly listen will say about Rush and his show. No offense and I'm not being a dick, but you're just wrong and even a casual, month-long listening (you CAN'T "get" Rush's show 5 minutes here, 15 there, etc. Just doesn't work that way...) would bear that out.

:)

Rush is conservative, first and foremost. When the GOP deviates from those particular principles and beliefs, I hear no one screaming louder and longer than Rush. He goes bonkers when Republicans foul up and drop the ball! That's just true, and I wager that I listen more than you enough to know.

;)

It's not HIS fault that Republicans, more than Democrats, represent traditional, conservative views. That's just how things break down and play out. So, on balance, he's got less a beef with the GOP, just because of that fact. But he doesn't give them a pass either, and that's a common misconception.

ANYWAY, back on topic: I still don't like Michael Moore...

:)

But that's okay, because I don't like Michael Savage either.

[Moogs]

:o

Well, maybe Rush has changed and I don't know what I'm talking about any longer with regards to his commentary quality. I have not watched him in a number of years but used to see his stuff all the time.

I guess what I mean - and it doesn't seem like your points say otherwise - is that Rush is not *doing* the interviews. He's not a part of the raport (good or bad) with whoever is in the spotlight. Yes he does clips and outtakes and all that, and that's good as far as it goes... but when last I watched him he was not doing any in-your-face kind of interviews (which I admit have their own flaws; no one likes being ambushed).

Anyway, I should've stated that I don't regularly watch the guy. I guess from an ideological standpoint, if he calls the GOP down on stuff for not being conservative enough (I think that's what you're saying), then at least that's consistent. Rather than supporting GOP at any cost, whether the policies are "conservative" or not.

[Quagmire]

I have found this through one of my sources.

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

[BRussell]

Yes, I can't wait to see it... :rolleyes:

Rush = Fat, overbearing blowhard with an agenda, given to overstatement and fact-bending to suit his views?

Moore = ?

You tell me. Limbaugh with a better understanding of lighting and focus lenses? But wait. You go on in later posts and say how much you like Rush Limbaugh and you've listened to him for so many years. If you're equating them as fact-bending blowhards, then why do you like Limbaugh?

I guess I wouldn't even know how to find Limbaugh on the radio if I wanted to. Don't know what station (if any) he's on where I live, nor what time. I've never even once heard his radio program, or heard anyone else listening to it, that I can recall. I have seen him on TV a number of times.

Anyway you can view the trailer here (http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/). I dare you to watch it pscates. And I'll listen to Limbaugh for two minutes, if you can tell me where to get it. ;)

[edit]Reaction to the trailer:
1. The Ashcroft singing "Let the Eagle soaaarrr" is a classic. But I've seen that many times.
2. The irony of the "Bush let bin Laden's family fly out" issue is that it appears that Dick Clarke, Bush uber-critic, is the one who approved the flights. Moore clearly implies Bush himself approved it in that trailer.
3. Bush: "We must stop the terrorists... now watch this drive." :lol: That's hilarious. Apparently there's other footage of similar Bush antics - when he's giving a speech announcing the start of the war in Iraq, he's being a doofus with the camera. (That's not in the trailer, but I saw the video somewhere else on the internet and heard it's in the movie.)
4. Trying to somehow indirectly pin 9/11 on Bush, if that's what Moore tries to do in the movie, isn't going to work, and will probably backfire. People just aren't going to believe it's the president's fault.

[Argento]

Moore is as big a douch bag as Rush. Both of them are extremely bias, however I've heard Rush bash rebulicans, same with Moore and democrats. They just do it so slightly that it makes them look not as completely as insane as they actually are. Never will you hear them support another party's senator/rep/president.

[pscates2.0]

But wait. You go on in later posts and say how much you like Rush Limbaugh and you've listened to him for so many years. If you're equating them as fact-bending blowhards, then why do you like Limbaugh?

You misunderstood. I put those descriptions of Rush there, meaning to stand for the typical, popular perception of him by those who don't like him (but who would heap praise on Moore).

I DO like Rush. I think he's more funny than anything. I don't get "marching orders" from him (another popular myth among some) and he doesn't make ME think/believe anything I kinda already didn't or see for myself. He's just a funny guy who gives it, daily, to the people I like the least.

And there's nothing wrong with that, is there? :)

[Moogs]

Wish I knew of a radio host like that... except that in order to be such a host, the personality in question would have to rip Hollywood, Clear Channel and all the people he or she is likely to ultimately work for, a new a-hole. Wouldn't be on the air very long!

:D

[pscates2.0]

Air America? Oh, wait...

:lol: :\

[Moogs]

Nah, Franken pretty much has to be a media whore like every other big radio personality, or he won't be a big radio personality. I think he was in some trouble recently though over his particular affiliate's management, wasn't he?

Maybe I should check iTunes Talk Radio.

:lol:

[pscates2.0]

Actually, moogs...sure enough: check out the streaming stuff in iTunes, under Talk/Spoken word or Public categories.

ieAmerica used to be there, and I'd listen for a giggle. There are others there now, one for "progressive minds". Give it a shot. It won't be right-leaning, I'll promise you that!

"Progressive" is kinda the new name for the "L" word, right? I don't blame them...I'd think of something new to call it too.

:p

You'll rarely hear a conservative shy away from saying the "C" word, and proudly so. I don't think I ever have, in fact. But I see interviews (with Robert Reich on "O'Reilly", Susan Estrich, etc.) and they'll walk four miles out of their way to NOT have the "L" word associated with themselves or anything they say or believe. Instead, they'll say "modern", "progressive", "forward-thinking", "open to new ideas", "non-judgemental" and even "mainstream" ( :D ), etc. Seems no one wants to loudy proclaim themselves that other word.

If you are - and you know it and are proud to be - then why not?

:confused:

I know, I know...it's all Rush's fault, right? He done went and made it a dirty word. BOO! :eek:

;)

I'm joking around, but I know that's the answer I'll get...

[thegelding]

why would i let somebody who doesn't know me label me with one word?? my friends who know me and i know them can call me liberal...i know how they mean the word...i would never let a stranger or rush call me a liberal...they don't know me, i don't know them...i have no idea how they mean that word...

and why should i let them choice the label they call themselves?? i would never use the word conservative to discribe bush (deficits, nation building etc) nor for rush (drug addiction, multiple marriages etc)

i would use the term elitist for them...do you think they would embrace that term?? why elitists? if you think like them, and agree with them, they like you and accept you...if not, you are unamerican, unpatriotic, etc...

me, i don't agree with lots of people...still think they are american, still think they can disagree with me and yet also be patriotic...so i wouldn't label myself elitist....

g

[Moogs]

I tend to be conservatively liberal when I can.

Moderately progressively modern at times....

[pscates2.0]

Don't yell at me, gelding...I'm just saying what I see.

:p

My friend's classmate, she was doing the same thing at dinner a while back when we were talking to her. She could not bring herself, it was like she'd read a memo saying "don't say this word anymore". She was describing/classifying herself as everything BUT. I think "hound-dog" and "astronaut" popped in there somewhere! ANYTHING but the "L"...

:D

Just an observation. I don't know why either, just something I've noticed for a while now, on shows and articles. And I don't care if someone calls me "conservative", looking at what I say and do, or the things I support. I figure it's probably a fair assessment, although they'd be surprised at a few things too because I'm hardly hardcore about stuff.

:)

[BRussell]

You misunderstood. I put those descriptions of Rush there, meaning to stand for the typical, popular perception of him by those who don't like him (but who would heap praise on Moore).

I DO like Rush. I think he's more funny than anything. I don't get "marching orders" from him (another popular myth among some) and he doesn't make ME think/believe anything I kinda already didn't or see for myself. He's just a funny guy who gives it, daily, to the people I like the least.

And there's nothing wrong with that, is there? :) Nothing at all wrong with that. It's not my thing, but whatever. I was just surprised that you seemed to be dismissing Moore, but equating him with Rush, but saying you liked Rush. It just seemed to violate some kind of transitive law or something. But what you're saying is that you don't like Moore's views, and you do like Rush's views, not that you don't like their style in general. Right?

But I'm sure the liberals who like Moore's stuff do so for exactly the same reason you like Rush - they think it's funny and it takes on powerful people they like to see get taken on.

And there's nothing wrong with that either, is there? :p

[pscates2.0]

No, it's horrible and disgusting, you fucking commie liberal tree-hugger!!!




;) :lol:

I'm KIDDING!!!!!!

:p

Of course it's okay...

[pscates2.0]

I don't know, B. No, I personally don't think Rush is a mean, obnoxious blowhard. But I totally understand the perception, and there are times when I listen to his show and go "oooh, THERE'S something that'll be lost on a casual, first-time listener...".

:D

I never saw him as the boogey man so many do, that's all. Just a guy on the radio. Funnier and more dead-on than most. But nothing I can't live without.

And I never claimed that I thought Rush "bent the truth". Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't? I don't know and, as I said, I'm not listening to him for an "education" or "marching orders". He agrees with me, not the other way around.

;)

But since Moore is less likely to ridicule Kennedy, Kerry, Jackson, Hollywood, etc. and other individuals, organizations and institutions I'm not a big fan of, why would I throw in with him? I think he's an obnoxious and unlikable fella, kinda shrill and hard to swallow. Yeah, that's my opinion...but that's really all that counts in these situations.

You taking over for SPJ with all the deep analysis, lawyerly encircling and pointed questions? Don't worry about it. I kinda dig the guy, but many don't. That's cool with me. What else is there to say without going in circles?. You're not going to get any juicy answers from me...

:p

[addabox]

i thought it was really hilarious when ole Rush opined that the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was on par with a Brittany Spears concert. What a cutup.

Oh, and when he ran with the "Kerry is having an affair" non-story, and the "Kerry flipped off a woman at the vietnam memorial" non-story, drawing broad conclusions about Kerry's character from made up shit. Comedy gold.

Oh, and back in the day when he compared the Chelsea Clinton, at the time all of 12 years old, to the White House dog. I about split my sides.

And when you throw in such ongoing gems as feminists being "ugly lesbians", and Hillary being a lesbian, and Janet Reno being an ugly lesbian, or possibly a man, and Barbara Boxer being an angry lesbian, man, that is some trenchant stuff.

And he's just like Michael Moore because they're both overweight and have political opinions.

Like when Michael Moore called Barbara Bush a dried up old hag.... oh, wait....like when he put in his movies that conservatives hate America...oh, wait....like when he posted pictures of Bush's head on a pig.... oh, wait....


Come to think of it, it seems like Limbaugh is the classic bully type, mocking and belittling with a smug sense of entitlement, running people down with broad and easy strokes, whereas Michael Moore is the classic muckraker type, trying to dig up the dirt and air it for all to see.

He might overplay his hand, but I've never heard him make fun of a child or call people "slimeballs" or or pretend to be physically repulsed by the very idea of an ideological opponent.

Rush makes it very personal, painting the people he disagrees with as bad, with bad characters that compel them to do even more bad things. They're worse than bad, they're barely human, they're a scourge that needs to be scoured from the earth. Their doings are inevitably grotesque, examples of their twisted inner lives and complete lack of a moral compass.

Moore is clearly outraged by the results of actions. He decries factory closings, injust economic systems, bad policy, misinformed public opinion, official lies, etc. You can argue the merits of his case, and his techniques, but this is clearly where he is coming from. He might set up a given individual to take the fall for some perceived misdeed, but he isn't going to spend time calling them names or brooding on their complete lack of worth.

There is a difference.

[HOM]

Is this what I think it is? A reasonable, polite, articulate political discussion?

:eek:

I think both Rush and Moore fall into the same category. Big fat obnoxious hypocrites that play fast and loose with facts.

Rush: Almost single handily created a movement where Liberal was equated to un-American. In the sense that Liberals are for income redistribution, weakening American defenses, forgoing American sovereignty, and being in the pocket of obstructionist forces like unions and lawyers. From my listening to Rush, I used to be a regular listener, he really has mastered political hyperbole. What makes it all the more powerful is that it's done through humor as pscates has pointed out. He pushed the boundaries with regards to personal attacks and particularly going after family members of political opponents. He pioneered a movement and had a dramatic impact on the discourse and agenda of American politics.

Moore: Perfected ambush journalism and blended a combination of humor, story telling, and left wing politics into a 2 hour film. He championed the idea that large corporations were all but inherently evil before it was part of the Liberal lexicon. Roger and Me still stands as a seminal documentary, not because of the substance, but style. It has become a model for the modern 'risky' documentary. However, there are serious issues with his methods, sources, and disclosures. More recently he has helped create the Angry Left that is not only appalled by Republican policies and personalities, but with their traditional allies as well. Whereas Roger and Me was a compelling story about a town and its people, Bowling For Columbine was a more obvious blend of personal stories and political ideology. Fahrenheit 9/11 seems to forgo the personal entirely, granted this is based on the trailer and stories coming out of Cannes, to focus entirely on the political. Moore seems to have lost the personal touch that made Roger and Me so powerful. The humanity has been taken out of his winning equation and been replaced by shrill partisanship.

However, I think they are both products of a larger problem. Cold War ideologies, specifically coming out of the hard line Anti-Communists, fell into the predictable trap that those that opposed policy X or idea Y were not only wrong, but un-American. But this idea was not limited to the Anti-Communists at all. The attempts from the Left to discredit and curtail their political opponents fell into similar lines of reasoning that the Anti-Communists were destroying the American way of life by disregarding American values and virtues. Some authors I've read argued that this ideology coming out of the Anti-Communists in the 50's was the American implementation of Fascism insofar as it holds Nationalism above all else including traditional American values. Others have argued that it was more a response to very real threats that America was facing from within and abroad. I'm not sure this line of reasoning can be settled until more time has passed and we can see what the real lasting impact was. However, I do agree that today's unfortunate level of discourse and hyper partisanship can be traced back to the those tumultuous times.

What I find most troubling is that the most rabid supporters on both sides of the political spectrum have lost their ability to reason with others. People that disagree are to be dismissed and ridiculed. Fundamentally I think its because Americans hold education as a means to an end, getting a better job, and not a end itself.

In the end, both Rush and Moore are Mac users and should be welcomed with open arms into our own little ideology. Hell I used to do Newton tech support for Moore when I was a younger man. :eek:

:)

[thegelding]

i personally stopped listening to rush one week when a listener called in a equated republicans to "brown shirts" and rush just went crazy (brown shirts = nazi)...rush went on and on about how dare this person equate "his people" to nazis....this was the same week that rush had used the term "femi-nazi" at least 10 times to describe females who didn't agree with his views...

g

[HOM]

Bumpity bump bump.

Well, I'm off to see F 9/11 in a few minutes. I was amazed when I read that it sold out every single showing in NYC yesterday including a 24 hour marathon at the Lowes Village 7 (11th & 3rd for those that are nearby). The first tickets I could get for today were at 10:50 PM and I bought them at 11AM. :eek:

I'll report back with a full review.

[Moogs]

My woman is gone for the night with her friends, so I'm half tempted to see it since I got to the theatre about two minutes too late yesterday.

[Akumulator]

I just got back from seeing it. It's unbelievable. Everyone owes it to themselves to see it.... even if you don't like Michael Moore, or are a Republican. Everyone needs to see what the media doesn't show in order to balance their understanding of what's happening. In one clip, Bush actually says "Being a Dictator would be so much easier". :no:

[alcimedes]

so how long until the fact checking crew goes through this film?

Bowling had some significant problems with facts, and i've already heard that this film is much worse. i'll wait a week, read up on what's wrong/lies/missing, then go see it.

[thegelding]

saw it last night with my brother and his wife (my family is beaching it in south carolina without me)...my brother is very liberal but he didn't want to see it because he thought it would be very "preachy" and he doesn't like that nor does he like to be told what to think etc....he really liked it...so did i and his wife....very good movie



g

[HOM]

I thought it was good, but it didn't really leave me with any feelings afterwards. It kinda went in one ear and out the other ear. Maybe that's because it's really two different movies put together or because there wasn't any info I didn't already know. I've really started reading up on this stuff after the Richard Clarke book.

That begin said, the Flint, Mi. mother was by far the most compelling person in the movie and the juxtaposition of her raw emotion and the Administration's coldness was very striking.

There were no 'facts' mentioned that struck me instantly as false, but there are a lot of clips that the context is heavily muffled, like the dictator quote. One problem I had with it was that there was so much info coming a lot of it gets lost, like the veteran benefits cuts.

In the end the movie is not about Bush, but it's about the troops. That, perhaps more than anything, surprised me. Moore makes a very compelling case that our troops are being left out to dry and puts a human face on the entire conflict.

The part of the movie that the GOP will have the hardest time with and will most likely use to condemn the film is the quick scenes in Iraq before the invasion. It's kids flying kites, weddings, and general happiness. Moore has said that it was put in there to counter balance the idea that Iraq was one big torture chamber with the entire population scared for their lives. I understand the rationale for keeping it in the film, but I wonder if it's going to be its downfall.

Anyway, F 9/11 is going to be the highest grossing film of the weekend and in its first 3 days it's going to surpass Bowling for Columbine's record breaking gross for a documentary. The estimates I read, and I'll track down a link, indicate that it will make ~$23 million. This would also break the per screen record. I would be very surprised if it didn't get considerable more screens for next weekend. There were a lot of theaters that didn't want this, but now how can they say 'no'?

[Moogs]

Because the media companies that own many of the theatres have a political interest in not showing it.

[Akumulator]

Because the media companies that own many of the theatres have a political interest in not showing it.
This will be more of a problem in the near future:
The Carlyle Group bought the Loews Cineplex Entertainment theater chain. (http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/06/1686771.php)

[billybobsky]

saw it last night with my brother and his wife (my family is beaching it in south carolina without me)...my brother is very liberal but he didn't want to see it because he thought it would be very "preachy" and he doesn't like that nor does he like to be told what to think etc....he really liked it...so did i and his wife....very good movie



g

hahahaha... beaching in south carolina without you...
being from the coastal area of south carolina, why in fool's name didn't you go? unless of course they went to myrtle beach, then i would understand... but you did say beach... :)

anyway, saw the movie tonight in philly with some liberal friends... its more of a this is bush, these are the things we know he has done, this is just a reminder. angry now (again?)? do something!

through the last quarter of the movie i was shaking with anger (i don't normally shake unless i am on the dance floor convulsing from the disco lights)...

in any event moore bit his tongue throughout...

[thegelding]

i'm a working fool...the wife and kids have off for the summer, so they go on longer vacations...i usually catch up with them for a week sometime on their trip...this year i am actually going out later so i can see my grandmother and visit with my pregnant sister in law near the time of her delivery...

the wife and kids are in Pawleys Island...nice area

g