Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the talk-amongst-yourselves dept.

Movies 3265

xerid writes "I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night, and the theatre was packed & sold out for each showing. Today, I read on Michael Moore.com about the movie breaking records. However, what I haven't seen was coverage on Slashdot, about the movie's opening day." I saw the film on friday and was really impressed. But while it speaks much truth, and has many funny parts as well as truly heartbreaking ones, I don't know how many votes it will sway. But since there is very little other news so far today, why not talk amongst yourselves!

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (5, Insightful)

foidulus (743482) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541857)

Seriously, although I saw this movie and liked it, this is not the place to discuss it. This site is supposed to be about technology I thought. The only really interesting technical tidbit of this film was that it was, IIRC, entirely created on a mac using Final Cut pro....
Let's get back to discussing robots and porn tech!

Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541874)

entirely created on a mac using Final Cut pro....

Now we have two subjects for the flame war! Cool!

Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541875)

Not at all.

This place is and always has been about "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters to CmdrTaco". He's always posted whatever's of interest to him. I see no reason this should be different.

Personally, I thought differently... (5, Insightful)

Pollux (102520) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541924)

I do believe that Slashdot's slogan is "News for Nerds, stuff that matters."

Now, if you consider every single news flash regarding, oh say, SCO, more important than a movie that I believe will make a fundamental impact on the future of how politics are played out in America, the fine, avoid this thread. But personally, I think nerds should be just as educated about how their country is run politically as well as technologically.

And besides, one of the greatest lessons to be learned from this movie (though I would have thought it would have been learned much earlier than this) is as follows: Never try and forcefully hide information from the public. The more you try and supress it, the more intreaguing it becomes and the more demand there is for it. If you really do want to hide something, try to be as discrete about it as possible.

But as soon as Disney tried to put the movie away because of benefits they've received from the Bush family, the press pounced, and Moore had a documentary that was "scandalous", and just like Clinton has proved himself, people love a scandal (and I'm sure /.ers will as well...I'd wager this thread will get about 1200 posts...any takers?)

Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541927)

Exactly, slashdot is not the place to discuss random movies, however there seems to be a lot of that going on. It is as acceptable to have a discussion of this movie as it is to have a discussion of every anime that's released. Maybe if all of Moore's footage was poorly animated naked Japanese women then it would have a place on slashdot.

Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (3, Insightful)

sporty (27564) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541932)

This site is supposed to be about technology I thought. The only really interesting technical tidbit of this film was that it was, IIRC, entirely created on a mac using Final Cut pro

Isolationist. The world is beyond your 4 walls. Education is always valuable.

Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (1)

foidulus (743482) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541992)

Read the first part of my post, I said I saw the movie. And on my way to see the movie, I listened to Savage Nation for a different viewpoint.
My point in making the post was, if I want to get into a political discussion on the merits of this movie, I will go to a political site.
I'm not saying that politics has no place on /., there are mixtures of politics and technology(patents, censorship, etc) that should be discussed here, however I don't feel that this issue is really one of those mixtures.
Ok, so maybe flamebate wasn't the right mod for this article, lets just call it off-topic.

Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (1)

djcapelis (587616) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541990)

This site is the place to discuss whatever people feel like discussing. As Taco mentioned, it's a slow news day, and why not?

It's not just only technology that this site deals with, politics and various other topics are integral to the feel here. Read the discussion of the Omelette in the FAQ if you need further clarification. (Besides, aren't you a bit new here to make judgements on what this site is about?)

Re:Let the flamewar....COMMENCE! (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 10 years ago | (#9542002)

Considering that the movie almost wasn't distributed by Disney in the states, I think this article would fit well in the Your Rights Online section, typically since the YRO section frequently comments on issues that are just about rights and not nessesarily about online rights.

Also considering that the film critiques the current US administration, which has been the focus of a lot of flack on slashdot, the film I think could be commented on.

Some articles will always be seen as Offtopic but some are important enough to us to get shown anyway. [slashdot.org]

Dishonest (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541860)

Regardless of his politics, the man is basically dishonest, so you are left with the task of trying to sort the bullshit from the truth. Good luck!

Re:Dishonest (1, Insightful)

Chainsaw (2302) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541868)

Back up this statement with facts, Coward. Or better yet: make a movie about it, and distribute worldwide. :-)

Re:Dishonest (3, Informative)

FireAtWill (559444) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541914)

Back up this statement with facts, Coward. Or better yet: make a movie about it, and distribute worldwide. :-)
>This guy already did. [michaelmoo...merica.com]

Re:Dishonest (2, Informative)

Skater (41976) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541922)

Well, the guy did say his one purpose with the movie was to unseat George W. Bush. How much more evidence do you need?

Here are some sites/articles that might be helpful:

Bowling For Truth [bowlingfortruth.com]
Washington Post article [washingtonpost.com]
Washington Times article [washingtontimes.com]

I wouldn't take anything Moore says without a supply of salt. Not that I completely trust the first website, either.


Re:Dishonest (0, Troll)

aled (228417) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541989)

And how is that bad if you believe you president is dishonest and a lier? Not that ever a president was like that, of course!

Re:Dishonest (3, Informative)

linzeal (197905) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541933)

Check out this [bowlingfortruth.com] . I'm a pretty radical guy and I don't care much for moore either. The man got too big for his head.

Re:Dishonest (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541872)

Watch the film and show to me one dishonest thing he did...he has a whole fact checking team there to ensure that there is nothing wrong with what he said. I want to know how your broad generalization can prove them wrong...you seem to sound a lot like Mr. Savage of Savage nation...could you just be regurgitating his little rants?

Re:Dishonest (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541981)

I haven't seen the film, but will probably today. There's a book out/will be out called "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" that will explains Moore bending/manipulating the truth. There will also be a movie called "Michael Moore Hates America." By Michael Wilson that rebuttal Moore documentary. But to add to the dishonesty, I remembered (don't know the exact wording) in "Bowling for Columbine", there a Sign someone holding that read something like "John Doe raped X person". Moore digital edit to said "John Doe murdered X person". This was in the movie version but was forced to unedit in the DVD. Don't believe anyone till you see the other side. Moore is a great proganda film maker but don't ever consider him to be a documentary film maker, it would be an insult to many honest and balanced people who make documentary.

Re:Dishonest - Who? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541892)

I agree Bush is dishonest because he's a flaming idiot; Cheney is dishonest because he's a hardened criminal; and Rumsfeld is the real life Dr. Strangelove. Anyone who can, at this point in time, continue to support Bush for re-(s)election, is seriously in la-la-land.

Re:Dishonest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541900)

I assume your talking about Bush? ;)

Re:Dishonest (1)

Rosyna (80334) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541903)

And that is the problem. He is really no different at all from the radical conservatives. He just happens to be "fighting" and "lying" for the other side.

If you were on the same side as him would you really want HIM to be your spokesman?

Re:Dishonest (2, Insightful)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541918)

He make his bias clear, and attempts to back it up with facts. I can't say I agree with him, but that is one commendable thing. Can't say that about the other guys. I'm still waiting for WMDs.

Re:Dishonest (5, Insightful)

glsunder (241984) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541954)

Regardless of his politics, the man is basically dishonest, so you are left with the task of trying to sort the bullshit from the truth. Good luck!

What's funny is I'm not sure whether you were replying to a post about gwb or it was a post on moore. That statement could pretty accurately apply to 90% of people in politics.

Re: Dishonest (1, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541961)

> Regardless of his politics, the man is basically dishonest, so you are left with the task of trying to sort the bullshit from the truth.

Kinda like everyone in the Bush Administraton, who get to spin their version of things on the news every night.

damn right (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541865)

down with the USA, stop the imperialist pigs!

Truth? (2, Insightful)

PNutts (199112) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541867)

Please don't confuse entertainment with truth.

Re:Truth? (5, Funny)

bokkepoot (143872) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541873)

That's why i always watch Fox news with a bucked of popcorn

Re:Truth? (5, Funny)

Trespass (225077) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541887)

That's why I always read Slashdot with a bucket of popcorn.

Re:Truth? (1)

aled (228417) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541897)

Can you expand on that comment?

Re:Truth? (3, Informative)

betelgeuse-4 (745816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9542005)

Although Micheal Moore is a "documentary maker", his documentaries don't stand up to tough analysis. He has apparently used rather dodgy editing techniques (Charlton Heston's tie changes colour in what is supposedly one speech) and staged events and presented them as real (getting a shotgun from a bank). Although I am left wing and I enjoy Micheal Moore movies, I see them as the same type of documentary as The Office [bbc.co.uk] or This is Spinal Tap [imdb.com] .

Re:Truth? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541946)

Never confuse insight with copied one liners.

Re:Truth? (5, Insightful)

Sanity (1431) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541971)

Please don't confuse entertainment with truth.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

If you have specific issues with the facts in this film them lets hear them.

Re:Truth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541976)

For example, the Reagan years.

Re:Truth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541978)

Please don't confuse political slant with relavent postings.

Go see the movie and then make your quips.

See it. (0)

drb000 (761618) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541869)

I saw the movie and think it is important to discuss it in every venue possible. It raises questions that should be answered.

Re:See it. (1)

brhodes (556833) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541906)

Michael Moore's politics have more contradictions than the bible.

In any event I can wait until this bad boy airs on Comedy Central.

Slashdot Jumps the Shark with this article (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541876)

Enough said

Extreme views (3, Insightful)

Dark Lord Seth (584963) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541877)

Michael Moore is an extremist. Extreme left-wing in this case, if I recall correctly. I saw Bowling for Columbine and it was a a good movie, but always, ALWAYS remember that's just ONE side of the spectrum. I'm not much at home at US politics, but I believe that Michael Moore is to left-wing/democrats what Ann Coulter is to the ring-wing/republicans. Except one is a small fat guy with beard and the other... isn't. Don't copy other people's opinions; listen to both sides of the story and make your own.

That said, I still would like to see that movie for fun. I'm no american, so american political views be damned; I just want to see the guy piss over several people!

Re:Extreme views (4, Interesting)

paroneayea (642895) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541926)

I'm no american, so american political views be damned; I just want to see the guy piss over several people!

And from the standpoint of someone who is an American, I think many of us would like to see that too... if only because it would be a great change of pace after having our civil liberties pissed on by.... certain individuals.

Re:Extreme views (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541930)

Well Bowling for Columbine didn't try to spread bullshit or put some unrealistic spin on something. It had no lies. It was a documentary. People who didn't like the outcome of it obviously brand it a pack of lies from an extremist: it is their only defence.

Re:Extreme views (5, Insightful)

spj524 (526706) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541936)

Don't copy other people's opinions; listen to both sides of the story and make your own.

Exactly. Don't believe what anyone tells you without going out and doing some research yourself. If what you find confirms what you are told, then and only then can you consider it as fact. I see too many people on both sides pick up quick buzz-phrases and run with them only to be made a complete fool by someone who is more informed. Do your homework.

/wow. this took 4 'Previews'... HTML is rusty

Re:Extreme views (1)

Azghoul (25786) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541940)

I think you're right on. I have not mod points, so this is all I can give you.

Cherry picking points that make the other side look bad are what both sides do.

No doubt the vast majority of the gang here will love it though...

Re:Extreme views (2, Interesting)

illumin8 (148082) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541956)

I'm not much at home at US politics, but I believe that Michael Moore is to left-wing/democrats what Ann Coulter is to the ring-wing/republicans.

I wouldn't go that far. Ann Coulter is basically the equivelant of Howard Stern, but for neo-conservatives rather than frat guys. She tells blatant lies and basically says whatever she can say to get people riled up the most. I mean, she actually named her book "Treason", implying that anyone not supporting the Bush administration or any one of the wars our president starts is a traitor and should be killed. This is way over the top. Michael Moore, on the other hand, while he might have what some consider left-wing views, does not advocate stringing up Republicans and killing them for their viewpoints.

extreme left-wing? (1)

Sunnan (466558) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541962)

Huh. Some of the places where I've been hanging around, Moore would be considered annoyingly centrist.

Still planning on seeing the movie, though.

Re:Extreme views (2, Insightful)

aled (228417) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541965)

May be extreme left wing in your country (where do you live? Switzerland?), in others so called extreme left wing throw stones to extreme right wing police force in manifestations. Your milleage may vary.
AFAIK Moore don't rocks to people and is enough of a capitalist to make Oscar winning movies. And in rational thinking one don't usually think higher of a person because is a slim blonde and lower of other because is fat bearded.

Re:Extreme views (0)

Qstyk (73565) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541991)

Yeah, pretty much every review I saw said that it was clearly propoganda. It's interesting to see that Taco says it contains much truth and his only concession is that some of it is funny, too. I guess that shows where he fits (or doesn't.)

Bear in mind, this is coming from someone who hasn't bothered to see the movie, but has seen Michael Moore enough in the news to already know the jist of the movie.

Re:Extreme views (5, Insightful)

Egonis (155154) | more than 10 years ago | (#9542003)

Whoa, EXTREME Leftist???

On a political scale within the United States, although it may not appear that way to American Citizens, all parties are on the far right as compared with other nations.

We Canadians have a Liberal Government, literally named, far beyond the left Americans consider acceptable in their political campgains, etc... yet, we have an extreme leftist party called the NDP -- it's a matter of perspective.

I think that Michael Moore takes his own reality, and the facts to back it up to make his point... it's not to say that he fabricates anything, but it's all about how the information is presented, and in his case... 'left-wing' for Americans. Like any editorial, documentary, etc, it's all about how the viewer perceives the information.

Moore's Politics (4, Interesting)

hamstersonPcP (766927) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541886)

The guy's not really a liar, he's just very, very out there in terms of his views. Which isn't to say he isn't right a lot of a time. He's got his head on a lot straighter than a lot of radicals, like say, the REAL liar, the subject of the film... Fill in initials of world leader here. Not the place to discuss it? EVERYONE should be discussing the deceit and warmongering of our supremely selected self-declared messenger of God.

Farenheit 911 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541888)

I haven't seen it yet, but I intend to. I'm sure there are exaggerations and perhaps outright lies in the movie but regardless of if you agree with Moore's views or not I think it's important to see it because it represents so much that is not shown much in mainstream US media. Watch the primetime news on US TV and you get one side of the story. Watch news from other countries and you get a fuller picture. See it as a way of broadening your experience regardless of your political affiliation.

That said, /. is not really the place to discuss this :-)

Uh there's a reason for that (1, Insightful)

sielwolf (246764) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541889)

However, what I haven't seen was coverage on Slashdot... since there is very little other news so far today, why not talk amongst yourselves!

*checks upperlefthand corner of webpage, notices the banner still says "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters."*

I can't see how this comes even close to News for Nerds, especially the tight way it is defined on the FP of /. Of course I'm trying to remember why folks don't like it when incendiary discussions are posted...

But while it speaks much truth

There you go. Statements like that. The sort that start 400 reply flamewars and do little but pump up the ad counts on a slow Sunday. I think I'd rather have a forty count of goatse ascii art. Its understandable a reader would submit such a thing (since he considers it "interesting"). It's sad that an Editor would think this is something apropo to this site.

Re:Uh there's a reason for that (1)

yourEgg (791999) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541979)

Stuff that matters..?

Re:Uh there's a reason for that (4, Insightful)

squaretorus (459130) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541997)

I can't see how this comes even close to News for Nerds,

I have to disagree - that a DOCUMENTARY (admittedly an sensationalist entertainment led documentary) is opening on so many screens in intellectual backwater that is mainstream US multiplex is pretty damn good news for the nerdy populace!

This is a fact / interpretation of facts based movie, with a relatively minor distributor, beating 'the man' to an extent by even being released.

If some shit Mangaporn going to DVD is news, then Im sure as hell that a major documentary opening is. That said - if the /. editors could come up with a more refined presentation of the article - ie give it some POINT - we'd be discussing the movie, the distribution, the SOMETHING instead of just discussing wether this is okay to discuss!

Angering and Heartbreaking (4, Interesting)

Savage Conan (736365) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541891)

This movie really runs the range of emotions from anger to laughter to sadness. I just wish more republicans would go see it. Unfortunatelky they see it as an attack to their party rather than an attack to a small group of people that happen to be republican. I know a lot of people won't go see it because they don't want to put money in Michael Moore's pocket. I urge everyone to go see it. If you can still vote for Bush after watching it, I would love to hear your rationalization.

Millionaire Michael Moore's latest (0, Troll)

nonameisgood (633434) | more than 10 years ago | (#9542004)

Not a republican, for that matter not a democrat either. Not going to pay for MM's latest.

I have never seen anything that MM did that I liked. He is intellectually dishonest and he sells this drivel as truth, when he is in the entertainment business. It is kind of like op-ed in a newspaper. But op-ed has its own page, not to be confused with real journalism and news reporting.

Truth doesn't matter (3, Insightful)

mnemonic_ (164550) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541893)

Lies are completely unnecessary to convince the uninformed.

computers (5, Interesting)

mnemonic_ (164550) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541905)

Think about it... you could easily convince some computer-illiterate person of the superiority of Windows over Linux, or vice versa, without telling a single lie. It's all about withholding the right info, and presenting it in the desired light.

While waiting to see this movie in New Zealand (4, Informative)

ATAMAH (578546) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541894)

I was introduced to this absolutely astonishing documentary called "The truths and lies about September 11th". It's basically a video recording of a seminar held in the University of Portland by this guy called Mike Ruppert. I was sceptical to begin with, since i was expecting this to be just another conspiracy theory but i was proven wrong. He runs a website http://www.copvcia.com I suggest you check it out. As for the documentary that i saw - its an incredibly well-structured presentation, with ample proof for everything that is said during its course. No speculations, just plain evidence.

My opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541895)

Its an entertaining movie that makes a decent case but also makes many jumps in logic and infers things without real evidence. However, he also makes a few points with infallable evidence - such as businesses influence in gov't and how Saudis are evil. It really hasn't changed my opinion at all.

... but I'll defend to the death his right... (4, Insightful)

vudufixit (581911) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541896)

I was very upset when I read that a conservative group tried to pressure theater owners into not showing Moore's film. We have a free market of ideas in this country - if Moore's film is so bad, why not make their own film, or post anti-Moore blogs or buy airtime to put their views out? I don't care for Moore - I think he's a pseudo-populist, a self-aggrandizer, a non-documentarian (his films don't explore issues as much as bolster his point of view). He exploits his subjects (tasteless interview with Charlton Heston, harasses security guards and receptionists in an attempt to talk to the "big cheese," not to mention what he did with those crippled kids at K-Mart.) Not exactly the first person I'd choose to fight for the "little guy" vs. corporate and government power, but dammit, he has the right to say what he is saying.

Re:... but I'll defend to the death his right... (1)

paroneayea (642895) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541970)

not to mention what he did with those crippled kids at K-Mart.
Wait a minute... I can see where you might be coming from on a few of your other points, but Moore wasn't exactly dragging those kids along with him. Could be that I massively overlooked something, but I kind of suspect it's the other way around.

Re:... but I'll defend to the death his right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9542006)

I'm sure you were just as upset when The Passion was being on the one hand applauded by Protestant Christian groups; and shunned by Catholics everywhere else. Free Speech right?

Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine was a good film. He made some very interesting points. But to use that fame and make a one-sided left-wing I-hate-Bush-as-much-as-the-next-left-wing-nutjob "documentary" is absurd. So is paying 7$ to see it.

He's an advocate, and he has a microphone. It does nothing to quell the debate. It should do nothing to sway votes, since a reasonable person would want both sides before making judgement.

Don't flame Linux zealots for slowing the movement, then applaud this guy for his work. Same cookie, different bakery.

Christopher Hitchens Review (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541898)

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

Moore: Trying to have it three ways

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.

Recruiters in Michigan

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.

Trying to talk congressmen into sending their sons to war

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.

Photograph of Michael Moore by Pascal Guyot/Agence France-Presse. Stills from Fahrenheit 9/11 © 2004 Lions Gate Films. All Rights Reserved.Photograph of Michael Moore on the Slate home page by Eric Gaillard/Reuters.

Where is the tech, robots, or SCO diatribe? (1)

davejenkins (99111) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541902)

If this film contains none of the above elements, then it doesn't belong on Slashdot-- try FARK for a better venue.

The second we start letting political rants have their portion of the stage in /. then many many many of us will bail, and /. will devolve quickly.

AMAZING move (1)

xxdinkxx (560434) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541904)

I saw this movie two days ago at 11 am, and I was floored by it for the rest of today, the following today, today, and probably will be for a good while. This movie really shouldn't be seen just as a "we hate bush move" although many will interpret it as that. Rather its more along the lines of here is _all_ the corruption ( on the oil side of the equation... no mention of drug money) that goes on in our lovely government, even under other admins ( yes iirc clinton's admin wasn't made to look very good either). I must add that while everything is the movie has been checked, I found it interesting that he really didn't try to make the democrats look all that much better then the republicans.. the feel i got was that republicans and saudi(es) are evil and the democrats are clueless-- and not there when you need them.. in the best case senario. This move is not for the light hearted, but everyone should see it (as it will be the source of much controversy). I can see why this movie was a winner of the canies award. Regardless of if one thinks that Michael Moore is a crackpot or not, the actual footage speeks for itsself ( and in some cases quiet amusingly (if that's a word) so).

Re:AMAZING mov[i]e (5, Interesting)

xxdinkxx (560434) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541986)

sorry, never post before being awake(corrected text): My wife and I saw this movie two days ago at 11 am, and I was floored by it for the rest of that day, the following day, today, and probably will be for a good while. This movie really shouldn't be seen just as a "we hate bush movie" although many will interpret it as that. Rather it's more along the lines of here is _all_ the corruption ( on the oil side of the equation... no mention of drug money) that goes on in our lovely government, even under other admins ( yes iirc clinton's admin wasn't made to look very good either...though to be fair, wasn't demonized like the bushes (and shouldn't be for that matter) ). I must add that while everything is the movie has been checked, I found it interesting that he really didn't try to make the democrats look all that much better then the republicans.. the feel I got was that republicans and saudi(es) are evil and the democrats are clueless-- and not there when you need them... in the best case senario. This move is not for the light hearted, but everyone should see it (as it will be the source of much controversy). I can see why this movie was a winner of the canies award. Regardless of if one thinks that Michael Moore is a crackpot or not, the actual footage speeks for its self ( and in some cases quiet amusingly (if that's a word) so).

dude ate allot of hamburgers (1, Funny)

retartedted (791995) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541907)

yah Ive seen some stuff about this movie....this is where Michael Moore ate all those "supersized" hamburgers from McDonalds for 4 years straight... god its disgusting what he did to himself, he looks like he probably sweats when he reads.

First few comment (4, Insightful)

clenhart (452716) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541909)

I've seen the first few negative comments about the movie not being truthful. The movie *is* truthful, and if you think otherwise, please state specific claims.

This movie is right on. If you scratch your head and wonder why progressives and the world are against the war, watch the movie and see the other point of view. Our media coverage of the war has been very one sided and this movie points it out very clearly.

Don't brainwash yourself and say Michael Moore is this or that. Watch the movie and think for yourself.

Bends the truth (2, Insightful)

EnterpriseNCC-1701 (664193) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541911)

I have not seen it yet but I know Moore has a tendancy to bend the truth by making things seem to imply one thing when it is not really what happened. He just edits things so they seem to say what he wants it to say.

Longtime Michael Moore Follower (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541916)

Before the number of comments goes through the roof, I'd like to comment on this topic from a non-political perspective.

I first studied Michael Moore in college, in a film class, when the only major work he had done was Roger and Me. This was at it's nature a political film, but the political venom was many notches below his last two movies (Columbine and 9/11).

The prime point that EVERYONE should remember is that Michael Moore can be used as a case study of why to be wary of 'documentaries'. His style as a director is textbook in the art of time manipulation for the purpose of making a point where one would not have existed before.

I will provide an example: In Roger and Me, he had a clip where Ronald Reagan visited Flint Michigan, promising to bring economic properity that did not exist during the end of the 1970s. The film then explained that GM immediately closed a plant and laid off thousands of workers.

This example implies that one led to another directly. In fact, there was a gap of 7 years between the two events; one when Reagan was a candidate in 1979...the other in 1986 when the cuts were announced.

Just remember: he is manipulating to make a point, but to say it is true would be untrue.

This is just one example; I'm surprised no one has written a book on Michael Moore, because there is a lot of evidence that could be covered.

Personally, it's entertainment. If you are spending your hard earned money looking for truth or fact, please look elsewhere.

Never again since Roger and Me (1)

bender647 (705126) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541920)

Michael Moore will not get another dollar from me after that one-sided tripe "Roger & Me".

Moore's history of dishonesty (0, Flamebait)

justin_speers (631757) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541923)

Worst front page slashdot post ever.
News for nerds?

Oh well.

Whatever your opinion of the Iraq war, Moore isn't the most reliable source of information:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html [spinsanity.org]
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html [hardylaw.net]
http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/schlussel/s chlussel_014.htm [politicalusa.com]

If anyone cares to read some REAL research and analysis from an anti-war perspective, why not try the Cato Institute? http://www.cato.org/current/iraq/index.html [cato.org]

Taking Michael Moore seriously is like getting all your news from Kurt Loder and that "Sway" guy on MTV.

Re:Moore's history of dishonesty (0, Flamebait)

Azghoul (25786) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541967)

Thank you for pointing out the rational research done by Cato.

Michael Moore is a tool.

WTF?! (-1, Troll)

TheLoneCabbage (323135) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541928)

A movie that at it's best is political documentery!! WTF is it doing on slashdot!? Is it shot in 100% cgi? Did they using Linux boxen to make Michale More look less repulsive? Are they keeping cam corders out of theaters with night vision radar?

This is to F-ing much!

Why does someone try to convert me to their religion every where I go?!!

One Last Questions: Taco, when the h@ll are you going to applogize for this?!

This is worse than Matrix 3.

Way to go Taco... (0)

opeuga (208321) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541937)

This is the dumbest fucking thing slashdot could ever do.

Everybody, before you post (2, Insightful)

mst76 (629405) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541938)

Please state first whether you've actually seen the movie or not, OK?
I haven't, BTW.

German Release (2, Interesting)

chillmost (648301) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541942)

According to this press release [] it won't be available in Germany until July 29th. What the hell is taking so long? Maybe some of the more "arty" cinemas will be able to get a copy before that. Ich möchte sehr gern den Film sehen. I hope they don't suck it up by dubbing the film, but just stick subtitles on it instead.

Dodgeball (0, Offtopic)

maddskillz (207500) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541947)

I didn't see Farenheit 9/11 but I did see Dodgeball. It was pretty funny. Something about people getting hit in the face with stuff that cracks me up. I give it 3 and a half stars

Michael Moore on Canada (1)

cybrix (2399) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541950)

I saw the movie last night and I enjoyed it very much. I cannot see why Americans would vote for Bush especially after seeing this flick. What I disagree with is Michael Moore's decision to tell Canadians who to vote for in the upcoming election on Monday. It's none of his business and nor is it Ralph Nader's. I'd feel the same if Arnold Schwarzenegger came out and said "Don't vote for those corrupt Liberls in Canada". The Canadian government system is much different than the American system and a dictatorship is much less probable. Besides, the Conservative Party in Canada seems a whole lot more left wing than George Bush and dare I say John Kerry. American's shouldn't get involved in Candian politics just like Canadians shouldn't get involved in theirs. Let us decide who can run our own country.

Thanks for listening...

UnFarenheit 9/11 (2, Informative)

olafva (188481) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541952)

You may find more truth here [msn.com] .

Cant see many votes changing (2, Insightful)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541957)

Moore is really preaching to the choir with this movie. If you agree with what he says you are unlikely to vote Bush regardless and Bush supporters will most likely view it as fabricated propaganda regardless of its accuracy or failings.

What might make a difference is how the rest of the world feels about it given the closed and inaccessible nature of the current US administration.

bradbury (1)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541963)

Ray Bradbury isnt too happy [washingtonpost.com] about the film name!

From the article
Michael Moore is a dumb [expletive], that's what I think," Bradbury told the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter during a phone interview from Los Angeles.

My Review (4, Insightful)

Malggi (791997) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541968)

Well, I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight and I thought it was pretty good.

I got the tickets earlier today and I'm glad I did. When I got to the theater there was a line down the block for people waiting to get in. The last time I had to wait in a line outside the theater to get into a movie was when I saw Return of the Jedi in '83. So that part of it was pretty cool.

There really isn't that much new information in the movie, unless all you watch for news is the local news at 11 pm or something. There certainly wasn't any out and out lies. Some of the ways he spliced the footage together was pretty funny, but I wouldn't call it deceptive. There was nothing in the narration that was false though.

There was some stuff in the beginning about the 2000 election that was news to me, and painted Democrats in a pretty pathetic light. Plus there were some pretty extreme cases of the government going overboard in the name of homeland security, but again they were more comical than anything.

There was also some pretty surprising information about how much of our economy the Saudis are in control off. I had never seen that before either. Pretty amazing stuff.

As far as the movies rating, I can see why it would be R, but there's nothing in there that a teenager couldn't handle. I'd have no problem bringing 14 year olds and up to the movie. Anybody out there now who's thinking of enlisting might want to go see the movie. There's some footage of solders talking about there experience that's pretty sobering.

All in all I think it was one of Moore's better films. A lot better than Bowling for Columbine. It is an attack on the President. So if you're one of those types who think that we shouldn't be critical of the President during war, you'll hate it. Otherwise though, I think people will enjoy the film.


Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541969)

Potential Slashdot advertisers:

Please consider this as a prime example of what Slashdot has become.

They parade themselves as mainstream, and a source for news, but are in fact the religious fundamentalists of the tech world.

If you advertise on this site, I STRONGLY recommend that you consider this fact before spending your money. Do you want to be associated with a fundamentalist political website?

Please take your business elsewhere. I'm taking my traffic there...


Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541972)

9/11 was NOT stopped so bush and his israeli cronies (handlers?) could start a war of conquest in the middle east and grab their oil, because the U.S's oil is running out fast.

all SERIOUS investigation into 9/11 has been thouroughly stonewalled by the bush administration?

Pentagon plane? NO PLANE WRECKAGE
CIA translators? GAGGED
Bin laden family? FLOWN OUT ON 9/12
"dancing israelis"? CLASSIFIED
Bush'd reaction? GOAT STORIES

What the HELL is going on here?

Not to be a pessimist but... (1)

Dutchy Wutchy (547108) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541973)

Bush still has a large edge because all he has to do is cause a split in the votes between the Democrats and the Greens. He doesn't even need to do a good job of that. With the negative adds he is running, it is also encouraging people to not vote because of all of the fighting and bickering between the candidates.

So, a vote for anyone other then John Kerry is a vote for Bush, and not voting is a vote for Bush.

Let us just hope that John Kerry doesn't have any ulterior motives or wild political ideas if he is to be the next president. Otherwise, we may all be wondering "Would another 4 years of Bush been that bad?"

out there.... (1)

aural (791996) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541974)

There is another person in the US that is really really out there with his views.... unfortunately it is our current President, George W Bush. I don't exactly agree with Michael Moore's politics, opinions, or tatics 100%, but he does raise interesing questions and make you aware of things and angles that you might not be. George W Bush on the other hand just wants to force feed you his religious view on everything, and give you an unintelligent retort to any boarding question to his methods or tatics that he might not approve of. I dont really think that John Kerry is the BEST choice for our next president, but he sure is the lesser of 2 evils, and any vote not for Kerry is one for Bush.... and if we the peope put him back in office for another 4 years, help us all.

I haven't seen the film (2, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541975)

But I did read Stupid White Men.

Michael Moore does make some good points, but he also fails to check his facts, and if often so innacurate that his honesty becomes questionable, and misses the point a number of times.

For example, he claims that the US government gave permission only to Bin Ladens family out of the US after the September 11th attacks. Further checking of facts will reveal that it was the Saudi government that arranged for all of its citizens to return home should they so desire. And while flights were limited at the time, there were a number permitted for important reasons.

Then there's the complaints that certain politicians want to outlaw abortions "even in cases of rape". That's because some people consider it murder! Now, whether you agree with them or not in this respect, I don't think you can criticise them for not wanting to kill a child because his father was a rapist.

Then there's his "Cold hard statistics". He talks about how the richest 1 percent saw their wages go up by 147%, whereas the poorest 20 percent are earning $100 less (adjusted for inflation). Those are two totally different statistics!

And my final complaint - He seems totally unable to comprehend how any black person could possibly be oopposed to Affermative Action.

I like how Penn of Penn and Teller put it... (4, Insightful)

DaedalusLogic (449896) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541977)

In his show bullshit on the Showtime Network, the topic was the overblown emphasis on safety and terrorism in our world today. It was something to the effect of:

"There will always violence and suffering in the world, and Michael Moore will always be there to make a buck off of it."

I liked Michael Moore's work in "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" made some good points at times. I just do not agree with him on most of his views and I think his personal political conduct has been reprehensible lately. For one, he canceled an interview with Fox News at the last minute. The station is certainly conservative, but shouldn't that mean he should be big enough to stand up and take his case to the other side? Of course he couldn't use any slick editing and he wouldn't be the only one talking, so that might hurt him.

Ugh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541980)

I think Michael Moore is a traitor. As is anyone attempting to implement a socialist agenda in this country. I won't see the movie as a result. I'm truly saddened that anyone considering themself a patriot would entertain seeing this film and take it seriously.

Meh. Feh. Bah. Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9541982)

Bush is bad. Bad enough to be impeachable, IMO.

Moore is bad. Bad enough to warrant genetic cleansing.

I wonder which one has more people fooled. GW with the far right loonies thinking he is a divine appointment or Moore with the far left loonies thinking he actually has something intellectually worthwhile to discuss. (While I don't doubt that devoting an entire movie to slagging GW is worthwhile, I do not consider it intellectually worthwhile. GW has a lot to answer for. I don't think this is really a point of contention. This little revelation doesn't need to come from a rhetoric spewing attention whore, though. Some reasonably center-line criticism from a logical point of view may actually be helpful. It's just too bad Moore doesn't offer anything like that.)

Ok, let's try to be rational (5, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541985)

The movie is an opinion.

Of course it presents a specific point of view. It is made by a person taking into account his audience.

He uses a specific set of fact patterns. Other people use other sets of fact patterns. Be an intelligent person and try to get a wide variety of fact patterns before you decide what you will consider the most likely truth. If anyone believe that any single source is going to use an objective set of fact patterns, then that person is naive beyond any help.

And please, don't confuse the office of the President with the person holding the office. Confusing the two, and inducing confusion of the two, is the first step to a dictatorship. The former is an institution. The later is a person who was elected to guard that institution. The former is something that must be protected. The later is someone who should be willing to give his reputation and life to protect and serve. This means that criticizing the person is not treason. Sometimes that person needs to be criticized. Sometimes that person is a liar. Sometimes that person is sex addict. Sometimes, for example, that person is drug addict, and we know the TV has told us that drug addicts support terrorists.

So, no hitting below the belt. No calling people traitors for exercising constitutionally protected free speech. As we used to say, if you don't like it, go to Russia. Or, in other words, if you can't take the heat, get you wussy ass out of the kitchen. So no invoking war scenarios for a war that congress never declared. And remember, all sides are torturing humans, and everyone loves their kids equally.

www.fh911.com (1)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541987)

A friend of mine recently started a discussion forum to cover this movie specifically - perhaps for more long-term debate, y'all would visit http://www.fh911.com/" [fh911.com] .

Just a movie (2, Interesting)

yakimushi (792000) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541988)

Lets just not forget that this is still a movie, not a documentary. I'd rather not see another fiasco at the Oscars again.

Micheal Moore should not be taken too seriously (1, Redundant)

palfreman (164768) | more than 10 years ago | (#9541998)

I am not American, but I am very wary of the stuff Micheal Moore comes up with. Particualrly its factual basis. If you look at his films, there is a huge amount of plain assertion and fitting his own theories around the facts - and making plenty of them up too.

The fact is, things like how long it took for US fighters to both scramble, and be ready to shootdown civilian airlines (something unprecedented) is hardly surprising. It was in peace time after all. And if they had been up there in time to shoot them down, they may well have refused orders to gun down a plane full of civilians - stranger things have happened. But for Moore this becomes "proof" of an absurd consipracy theory, where the US government is made out to be somehow behind the attack - essentially a blood libel.

The fact is, had Micheal Moore been on the political right instead of the left, someone with his views would be rightly accused of having neo-Nazi sympahies. But becuase all this conspiracy stuff comes from a left wing journallist, people seem to things he must have a point.

I have an idea (1)

beaverbrother (586749) | more than 10 years ago | (#9542001)

Michael Moore for president!

There's one thing Slashdotters can agreed on (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9542007)

Give Bradbury his title back!

Fundamentalism (1)

hamstersonPcP (766927) | more than 10 years ago | (#9542010)

Before you start flinging the term around, look it up - The idea that by posting a story on this film, or discussing the impact of this film, is somehow supporting a radical viewpoint and a narrow way of thinking is frankly, ludicrous. The simple fact of the matter is that fundamentalists are the ones in power - Religious zealots, money-hungry politicians, all melding together in one devestatingly machiavellian clusterfuck. Let's not forget that the true criminal - Bush's new Crusade which is needlessly killing our devoted troops in misguided campaigns of ignorant misappropriation - is as tunnel-visioned as they come. So much ire over one more thing on a mountain of things that identify the REAL American Traitor.

Partial Coverage and Half-Truths (1)

dustwun (662589) | more than 10 years ago | (#9542011)

If you'll recall, there was a /. article about this earlier in the week, in which a house rep was furious over the use of his image in the movie because the way Moore clipped the video to suit his own needs. While I do think that we need to be aware of the actions of our leadership, this movie amounts to nothing more than propoganda to drive Moore's vendetta. Not to say it doesn't have a few valid points, but it's the media equivalent of cutting letters from a magazine for a ransom note.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?