posted on May 18, 2004 10:22:20 AM new
May 18, 2004 -- CANNES, France - President Bush need not lose any sleep over Michael Moore's much-hyped "Fahrenheit 9/11," which turns out to be a wet firecracker.
Moore's virulent feature-length attack on Bush, which premiered yesterday to a 20-minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival, falls far short of delivering on the filmmaker's extravagant promises of election-swinging revelations.
"You will see things you haven't seen before and learn things you have not learned before," he vowed on Sunday.
Well, maybe if you spent the last three years hiding in a cave in Afghanistan.
Sure, there's some media-grabbing footage - apparently shot by one of the camera crews Moore claims to have smuggled in with embedded troops - of American soldiers laughing as they place hoods over Iraqi prisoners, and one GI touching a detainee's genitals through a blanket.
But that footage actually conflicts with one of Moore's main arguments - that GIs have been victimized by being forced to participate in what he considers to be the unnecessary and immoral invasion of Iraq.
Moore's big stop-the-presses revelation is that the name of an old pal of the president who works for the bin Laden family was excised from 1972 National Guard records released by the White House in 2002. Yawn.
Mostly Moore dusts off a litany of old accusations against the president - whom he portrays as both a buffoon and a world-class conspirator - and lands few solid blows as he takes on targets like the Patriot Act and supposed war profiteering by the politically connected Halliburton Corp.
The sheer scope of the material he's trying to cover in a two-hour documentary - the Sept. 11 attacks rate maybe five minutes - leads to incredibly superficial and misleading treatment at times.
As a critic who awarded Moore's Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine" four stars, I was particularly disappointed with "Fahrenheit 9/11."
In "Columbine," Moore had something new to say about the gun-control debate and did so in a refreshingly entertaining manner.
"9/11" does not lend itself to such a glib approach, and while Moore may get laughs by presenting Bush and his staff in a brief "Bonanza" spoof titled "Afghanistan," the humor often seems much more forced here.
By far the best sequence features Lila Lipscomb, a woman from Moore's hometown of Flint, Mich., who lost her Marine son in Vietnam.
But when she tries to go to the White House to express her antiwar feelings, Moore ends up delivering a pallid echo of the high point of "Columbine," where victims of that high school massacre descend on Kmart headquarters to demand that the chain stop selling ammunition.
Far from the political hot potato Moore has been tub-thumping to secure a rich U.S. distribution deal and the July opening he lusts after - after Miramax was forced to sell it at the insistence of its corporate parent, Disney - "Fahrenheit 9/11" is more like a lot of hot air.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on May 18, 2004 11:37:03 AM new
Sounds like it must be a crappy documentary if he got a 20 minute standing ovation. Makes me wonder why Miramax was so scared of showing it if it's such junk.
posted on May 18, 2004 11:39:42 AM new
AP: Newsfeed 13:33:09 5-18-04
The Pope said Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 "is as it was". But a spokesman for the Vatican later retracted the quote and stated the Pope does not endorse films.
The film has also been labeled "anti-republican" by many right wing groups, but Moore and other film supporters counter that the film is true to the events surrounding 9/11.
It is also rumored that People For The American Way, and The Log Cabin Republicans, and many mainstream christian churches have been buying thousands of dollars worth of tickets and giving them away in hopes to boost the revenue for the film.
Many claim that the Moore film will come close to matching Mel Gibson's film.
posted on May 18, 2004 11:43:43 AM new
Here is another review of "Farenheit 9/11"
Less is Moore in subdued, effective '9/11'
May 18, 2004
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.
posted on May 18, 2004 02:46:28 PM new
Liberal lies just roll of their tongues so easily.
attacked Iraq to draw attention from their Saudi friends
The Saudi's weren't friends to the US during the clinton administration but rather our enemies???? I'd bet that's news to the most people in the US.
-----
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.
FACT: In Bush's first three years funding for the Veterans Administration increased 27%. And if Bush's 2005 budget is approved, funding for his full four-year term will amount to an increase of [b]37.6%.
In the eight years of the Clinton administration the increase was 31.7%
Those figures include mandatory spending for such things as payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities, over which Congress and presidents have little control. But Bush has increased the discretionary portion of veterans funding even more than the mandatory portion has increased.
posted on May 18, 2004 03:00:24 PM new
Sorry, I just don't like Moores stuff. I saw Bowling for Columbine, and I gotta say, he did his 'interview' with Heston under totally false pretenses, telling him he was a member of the NRA, (and yah he had a card, probably got it just for that, I don't know) but as much as a lot here don't like Charlton Heston, the guy is old, he surely showed his age in this 'movie' that Moore made. And Moore would NOT stop pestering him. Moore is the 'star' of his movies, and going to K Mart headquarters with victims of the Columbine tradegy was
for the media. And he got it alright, and K Mart caved to, probably not Moore, but all the media attention. Why did he not go to the gun makers, and have them stop selling the guns? Sorry, IMO his movies are not great, they have tons of editing and you definitly can tell. He shows only one side of things. Columbine was a tradegy.
posted on May 18, 2004 03:04:49 PM new
Oh and taking the name Fahrenheit 9/11 from one my favorite Bradbury books Fahrenheit 451 sucks. Get original Moore.
posted on May 18, 2004 03:08:04 PM new Sounds like it must be a crappy documentary if he got a 20 minute standing ovation
From the Artsy Fartsy Liberal crowd from "Hollywood" & Isn't CANNES in France? The country that the USA SAVED in WWI & WWII. The same France the "Surrendered" to Ho Chi Min. The same France that exported Exocet missles to China. The same France that refused to support the UN resolution agains Iraq.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on May 18, 2004 03:19:11 PM new
Bear, I don't see the connection between the things you listed and Moore getting a 20 minute standing ovation from his peers, most of which are not French...
posted on May 18, 2004 04:36:48 PM new
That Moore is a buffoon and a charlatan does not require much brain power to figure out. And there really isn't much to debate. If you claim to make a "documentary" (Columbine) and instead you piece together various speeches from several years to create an impression that something specific was said or intended at a specific time, you are a fraud. I have no doubt of the veracity of his newest product being similarly sourced.
A 20 minute ovation from America bashers and left wingers is supposed to prove something?? You think Ken Burns was in the front row cheering??? Doubtful.
Moore teaches sometimes at the Walloon Writer's Conference Seminars. A friend of mine who is a Pulitzer nominee also teaches. His "peers" there have a different view.
posted on May 18, 2004 04:49:42 PM new
desquirrel, you summed him up for me pretty good.
I didn't go out and buy a ticket to see the Columbine movie, it happened to come on showtime or HBO or one of those one night, and I watched it. And I actually watched the whole thing. If I remember, he would do an almost *subliminal' thing like how BAD the U.S. is, and went up to Ontario, I believe, and praised the living up there. How no one, NO ONE locks there doors. He even 'tested' that theory, supposedly, and walked down the street of what looked like middle class homes, and would just open the door, and the people would be so friendly. Now you think that was staged? And I liked the interview with the different people.... one girl, sitting in a bar, 'No, I never lock my door' he asked her 'Aren't you afraid of a break in?' she says 'No, I have been broken into before, but I still leave my doors unlocked' I thought .... ooookkkkkkkk now thats really smart , duh sorry, but IMO, he show just one side of everything.
posted on May 18, 2004 05:19:34 PM new
I haven't locked my doors in years. I figure if someone is dumb enough to walk inside my house uninvited, they deserve to be eaten by my dogs...
Actually, I will be interested in seeing this film, if we are allowed to do so.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 18, 2004 07:08:01 PM new
Which film bunnicula, Fahrenheit 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine?
The Columbine movie is on cable now (so it would definitly be at the video store) the other, I have no idea when it will be out, and it will be out. Probably Summer or Fall I'll wager.
posted on May 18, 2004 08:31:02 PM new
The new one--Fahrenheit 9/11. It is slated for release in the US in Spetember.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 19, 2004 06:32:53 AM new
I watched "Bowling for Columbine" for the first time a couple of months ago. While parts of the movie were a little far fetched to believe (namley people in Canada leaving their doors open), the movie did make me question why the US has more gun violence than other civilized countries in the world? Why is it the US executes more people per year than most civilized countries?
If you want to dismiss "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" as being one sided or anti- Bush then go ahead. But what if the government knew about 9/11 before hand and did nothing to prevent it from happening. As the 9/11 commission has been releasing its findings, I feel this was the truth.
Do you feel more safe now than you did before 9/11? Do you feel we are winning the war on terrorism? I have to honestly answer no to both of those questions.
posted on May 19, 2004 07:22:40 AM new
"As the 9/11 commission has been releasing its findings, I feel this was the truth."
You can "feel" anything you like, but to use these "documentaries" to garner information is pretty stupid.
It is not "anti-Bush" to piece together 3 years of Charlton Heston's speeches, sentence by sentence and make it seem things were said callously after Columbine instead of years before.
It is not "photojournalism" to show an old NRA convention and make it appear everyone was wooping it up and selling guns at shows a few days after Columbine. (Only an executive meeting was held, the NRA cancelled all festivities and trade shows).
The closest words that come to mind are chicanery and propaganda. If Moore were to tell any rational being it was sunny outside, they best take an umbrella with them.
posted on May 19, 2004 09:12:37 AM new
Moore's documentaries are just as fact based as any FOX news broadcast, and Moore's documentaries are even more fun and enjoyable to watch than FOX.
posted on May 19, 2004 09:23:33 AM new
Fox news is enjoyable to me, esp when Shepard is on
Yes, Moore does 'piece' together stuff, too much, and you can tell.
Everyone knows that Heston was the President of the NRA, so what? So he badgers him. And like you said, he edited the crap out of it, putting his speeches together.
posted on May 22, 2004 12:53:47 PM new
Moore wins Top Prize...
American filmmaker Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," a scathing indictment of White House actions after the Sept. 11 attacks, won the top prize Saturday at the Cannes Film Festival. "Fahrenheit 9/11" was the first documentary to win Cannes' prestigious Palme d'Or since Jacques Cousteau's "The Silent World" in 1956.'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins Cannes' Top Prize
posted on May 22, 2004 02:16:58 PM new
Krafty - Miramax is not afraid of the movie being seen. Disney was. Miramax is the studio that produced the film but they do not have thier own distribution vehicle. All of their films are distributed via contract with Disney. Miramax actually had to buy the ditribution rights back from Disney who refused to distribute the film in order to go to another company that would agree to distribute it.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 22, 2004 03:18:10 PM new
Hi Fenix! I thought Disney owned Miramax. (??) I went to the Michael Moore site and he explains what happened.
People might not like him, but he backs up everything he's said and done. Also, besides Bill Maher, I don't know of any other person that's willing to sacrifice themselves like these 2 guys to speak out against the politics of politics.
posted on May 22, 2004 04:02:15 PM new
They do own Miramax Krafty but you kind of have to understand the the studio system to get it. Studios like Disney buy smaller studio in order to gain distribution rights on their films.
It's a screwy system but it's to the benefit of both companies. Because large companies like Disney have larger catalogs of films than they would be able to produce of their own accord they have more pull when negotiating with outlets like Blockbuster, and theater owners. The smaller companies like Miramax have the benefit of big name distribution companies that can push what might otherwise be just be an "art-house" film into major theaters and put serious bucks behind their ad push.
The problems come when the parent company decides not to distribute which is what happened in this case. Sometimes it is just a bad movie (which generally end up going straight to video) but in this case, the fact that Disney made the decision not to distribute before they ever saw it definately smacks of political reasons, especially when you consider the success of Bowling for Columbine. Studios usually clamor to be involved in the next project of a producer coming off such high accolades. Fear of financial reprocussions in Florida is not a stretch and from a purely business standpoint, actually understandable.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on May 22, 2004 08:19:34 PM new
The former company that I ran had industry ties and my mentor in it's parent company was one of the top marketing guys in the business. I was privledged to have the opportunity to learn from him and soaked up every bit of it that I could. There are still days that I want to just call him up and say Thank You.
I'm sure there are a few things I don't know - I just have not identified them yet
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on May 22, 2004 08:19 PM ]
posted on May 24, 2004 07:32:27 PM new
Linda_K, if you see lies on this board its 99% republican lies. Bush and his crew are the best lier's ever. Just remember when Clinton lied no one died.
posted on May 24, 2004 11:03:06 PM new
A simple search will yield many web sites with detailed analysis of the construction of the CH speech (which is represented as being given after Columbine) as coming from half a dozen speeches from as long as 3yrs before. It doesn't stop there. You see, Moore is one of those "ends justify the means" type who won't blush at anything if it rids the world of the evil of guns. Next he'll tackle steak knives.
posted on May 25, 2004 03:27:44 PM new
desquirrel, republican lies about guns aren't working anymore. Democrats are not going to take anyones guns away. You need to go back to your bunker and come up with something NEW. Democrats learn from their mistakes, they aren't coming after guns anymore that was a mistake. The new Democrats are very focused, they are only coming after the failed republican leadership this time around.
posted on May 25, 2004 03:42:50 PM new
That's quite stupid also, since I couldn't care a twit about guns, merely citing an example.
The examples are legion.
If you were Jesse Jackson for example, you'd be in jail. If you run a $10 mil baby milk program and have receipts for $2 million for milk, you go to jail. The left gives you ANOTHER 10 million.
