Movie: Fahrenheit 9/11

@parnell - I think showem doesn't want to be put in a position of defending my somewhat hasty rant.

I still stand by my point that he misrepresents the situation though - there's nothing particularly outrageous about the bank's free gun offer if you believe in the right to bear arms ( which I don't by the way ). He presents it as "these dumb hicks handing out firearms in a bank", but it really isn't any different from selling guns at Walmart.

But if you want to see a reasoned argument against the 5th Amendment, check out the back issues of the Economist and so on. Or for that matter compare violent crime and the costs spent on dealing with it in societies with gun control to those without.

But in any case conservative Americans believe that you should give people the freedom to bear arms and make them responsible for any misuse of them. It's a perfectly honourable position to take and not ridiculous in the way he portrays it. Once again, I don't happen to agree with them.

Guh ??? The right to bear arms is one thing. But handing them out freely with bank accounts is another. It's appaling in the extreme. And sorry if they somehow feel the need to hand out guns freely with bank accounts -then they are indeed dumb hicks.

Moore may speak in emotional language. But I'm sorry he isn't lying. He is not making this stuff up.

Did Charleton Heston go to that town where kids were shot and hold a rally soon after or not ??
Do more people get shot in the states or not ?
Did they give him a free gun in a bank or not ?
Did the NRA get formed the same year the KKK disbanded or not ?

These are all easily checkable facts - and I'm sorry but Moore would not get away with making up stuff like that - the bank would sue him, the NRA would sue him, Charleton Heston would so him/summon biblical plagues.

So if you think Moore is lying then I suggest you take a cold hard look at your country and be sure you aren't deluding yourself.

This little fella does

Yes, Heston went to an NRA rally after Columbine. It was already pre-planned and it was considered in poor taste and sympathy by many people.

Do more people get shot in the States as compared to where? Sierre Leon?

Do you remember? Did they give him one or not? To be honest, I forget nor do I care, it's not pertinent to me. Yeah, it's stupid that a bank can give out handguns. Duh.

As for your last question. Yes is the simple answer, in 1871. However, 3 seconds of research also produced this: "The NRA was founded shortly after the American Civil War by Union Army officers who were appalled by the lack of shooting skills among the Union soldiers during the war and determined to correct this problem by encouraging the shooting sports and marksmanship among the general population, including former slaves in the former slave states. This made the NRA very unpopular in the former slaves states and the NRA was considered an enemy by the Ku Klux Klan."

As for taking a cold hard look, you should too.

A lot of things were founded in 1871, MM just implies the link.

Incidently the Society for the Publication for Danish Music were also founded in 1871...does this mean that the KKK could have been Danes...OMG

ok hands in the air you got me on the NRA KKK one.

And I should say I'm not attacking Americans - I've lived and worked over there and I think it's a great country.

As to taking a cold hard look at myself...I can assure you my friend I've done plenty of that.

Showem have you read a book called The Best Democracy Money Can Buy by Greg Palast ??? Seriously - this guy is a very respected Investigative Journalist and its a big eye opener of a book.

Clearly Moore has his bias; as does anyone. I like his films, they're entertaining. I agree with some of his viewpoints. I think he's definitely not a pundit for liberals. The thing I find most disturbing is that even though he claims to - I don't even think he really cares about effecting change in U.S. politics or societal issues. If he really does want change, then I believe the methods he uses are ineffectual and childish. Humiliation, without chance of redemption is a tool used by someone who doesn't believe in change and has either already given up or simply wants to look clever.

That many people seem to think his films are, for instance, deft in raising gun-control awareness may be true; but to think that they're efficacious to getting guns off the street is just wrong. Stating the obvious is not something that's worthy of high plaudits. Making a workable plan to actually removing the guns is. I've seen nothing in his movies where he demonstrates a plan for real change. For political commentary, that's fine. For political activism, which he claims to do, that's a major failure. He's a showman, not an activist. My own opinion, of course.

Well, people can start judging for themselves, a bit. The trailer is now up at: www.fahrenheit911.com.

Me? I think he's a very good filmmaker, but not a good journalist or politician. For me his biggest achievement is starting debate on the subjects he chooses.

People tend to be very defensive of their own countries (not just in the USA), so when someone points out a real problem (e.g. there are more gun related deaths in the US compared to any other western nation) you normally hear a lot of excuses and denials, sometimes it takes a polemic style like Moore's to make people realise they really need to fix a problem.

P.S. I overheard a conversation on my way home last night where a young American was explaining to a European the "racial" history of the USA from the Civil war to present day urban segregation without any reference to racism. Highly amusing.

I gotta say his plan for dealing with northern Ireland as outlayed in BFC is shockingly bad - would just stir up a shitstorm. And his plan for the Israel-Palestine thing didn't seem so good either (I can't remember the details - but I can remember the shocked errr not a good idea feeling they gave me).

Well that's very generous...

But I'm not advocating that. What I'm saying is that he raises a lot of good points, and it's stupid to discount them because of his bias. Of course he's biased...he's never hidden that. So of course he's going to leave out counter-arguements. Even news channels, which claim to be unbiased often have a perceptible leaning to one side (usually the right in the US).


I disagree with that. Firstly, if you ever watched 'The Awful Truth' you will see several examples of where he actually made a difference. In Bowling for Columbine he managed to get ammunition removed from K-Mart stores. And of course, the clincher - Fahrenheit 911 is being released shortly before the US election. That's hardly a coincidence...Of course it's not always going to work, but public humiliation can be a very effective tool.

I don't agree here - his polemic style alienates the people he needs to convince. If he wanted to solve the gun/crime problem, he should try to convince the NRA that a right to join a "well regulated militia" is not the same as having no gun control at all.

If he made thoughtful,honest documentaries on this sort of thing, I'd have a lot more respect for him. Mind you he'd definitely make less money out of that.

I haven't seen "The Awful Truth" Hazza, so I don't know really. In your K-Mart example there was redemption for K-mart. They got an easy chance to look good.

I've not seen nor read Moore offering that (redemption) to other issues or people he tackles. More like humiliation and ridicule, followed by more humiliation and ridicule (at least most of the time). I suppose anyone can change on an issue at any time; however, if someone says "fuck you" over and over, well - people will say "fuck you too" right back. He's not a politician nor an effective activist. At least for me, he's not convincing or enlightening about anything. A tool is as effective as the one wielding it.

Michael Moore is a dues paying lifetime member of the NRA - he wanted for the presidency so he could advocate gun safety. I don't pay much attention to this guy but I did find it funny that MM ran around trying to 'punk' people with fake gifts, i.e. he tried to give Bill Gates a weed wacker and some Martha Stewart sheets as a housewarming gift for Gates' new 60 million house. Wanted to make a statement was about excess capitalist greed... Moore then admitted on a talk show that he himself bought a 1.9 million dollar house...which if you compare the net worth of the two and the cost of houses, I would suspect there's a statement about excess entertainment greed in there as well.

Um, sorry, can't quite follow you here. It's the government coming under pressure from voters to deal with the murder rate that will get laws changed, the NRA would fight it all the way if it includes gun control, but if they're in the minority then the laws would still get passed.

Moore's filmed aren't designed to convince Charlton Heston that he's wrong, they're designed to convince his audience that they should be more politically active, which can't be a bad thing.

No, not at all - there's no difference between selling them in Walmart/K Mart which is absolutely everywhere, and selling them in the bank. If you want to buy a gun legally and use it to hold up a bank, it just saves you a five minute drive from Walmart to the bank if they sell them there.

Anyhow, you can't just walk into the bank and walk out with a gun -

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforc...scenes/bank.htm

While its dumb to give away a free gun with a bank account, it would be seriously dumb of any potential bank robber to do this, after all to open the account you would have to hand over all your personal information for the background checks.

OK, just a thought on this one, but were this to happen, the bank cannot legally give over the name & address details of the person robbing the bank, this would be confidential information wouldnt it?

Yeah, that bowling for truth link points out that you'd be better off paying a few hundred bucks for an illegal gun if you want to be untraceable, and most gun crime is committed with illegal weapons as far as I know.


I think law enforcement agencies can trump the confidentiality with a sub poena, or some legal thingy.

@Hazza

These are the things you say Moore is advocating. Ok. What's new here? These sound like cornerstones of the democratic platform (many of which are also supported by republicans I might add). I don't discount any of these because of Moore's bias. I do however discount conspiracy theory type allusions from him because he's simply not credible. Could UFO's exist? Could Elvis still be alive? Did GWB know about Sept. 11 ahead of time and still let it happen? Sure, it's theoretically possible AND I AM prepared to believe it if solid evidence is presented and not just manipulated film footage from someone who is not trustworthy. All of the issues you mentioned stand on their own merit and do not need MM's "help".

What? in the US?

Absolutely. Just ask John Kerry or Billary Clinton. Don't forget that more Americans voted Democrat in the last election than Republican.
Obviously you haven't lived in the U.S. because these issues always come up at election time.

You seem to think that America needs to be taught the gospel of liberalism. Well take a look at some polls and you'll find that in many cases a majority of Americans have already been converted.

As a self confessed right wing bastard, let me respond.

Greater protection and benefits for workers - there's a trade off between legal protection for workers and economic growth - compare the US/UK and Germany at the moment.

Environmental awareness - if you want to be aware of the enviroment, that's your choice

An equitable tax system - Define equitable: everyone pays the same amount (the poll tax), or the same percentage (flat tax), or a higher percentage as their income increases (European model). Personally, I'd go for the last one, with UKish levels of tax. I'm not sure what the best approximation of the US system is.

Accountable government - can't disagree, but don't the Americans have this. Hey, even the Iraqis will have soon if all goes according to plan*

Universal health-care - everyone wants this, it's just a question of what balance of state and private stuff you use to achieve it.

Gun Control - There's a balance between the right to have a gun, and a need to stop guns being widely available. Having said that, I think the US needs much tighter gun control.

A rise in the quality of education - see health care.

Abortion rights - can't disagree.

A fairer justice system - fairer than what

* unfortunately it probably won't

Didn't MM have a chapter about that in one of his books? There's plenty of liberal voters in the US when you look for them. I think the point is that much of the media tends to be dominated by the right in the US, its rare to see the things Hazza mentioned getting a full debate in the popular media.


Thanks to the European Social Chapter, Employment laws in the UK are much closer to the German ones than the US laws, so that ain't it.

I quite honestly can't be fucked with this anymore. I couldn't care less what the Americans do at home - it's the shifting shit to the rest of the world that I object to. The sooner Bush goes, the better off we'll all be. Michael Moore is trying to help this to happen...End of story...

@Astroboy
Don't take the following personally because it's not directed at you, I just want make a point...


Forgive my British English but that's bollocks. The media in the U.S. has been traditionally dominated by the LEFT. People working the media industry in the U.S. vote overwhelmingly Democratic and just so everyone knows, Fox News is a recent phenomenon and was started in an attempt to present the news from a more conservative perspective for those fed up with the liberal bias. I've never watched Fox news so I cannot really comment on it but I accept that it's biased towards the right but it's only ONE network. For everyone looking at the American media from abroad and who has never lived in the U.S., the media in the U.S. is indeed biased towards the U.S. itself but this is a far cry from being biased to the right. It just so happens that we now have a Republican administration that the rest of the world hates so you think our news is biased to the right. It's not. It's biased towards supporting the U.S. which happens to be unloved right now. Back when Clinton was president, I seriously doubt foreigners were complaining about how the U.S. news was biased to the right. When I refer to left and right here, I am obviously talking about the American left and right and not the European left and right of which both are skewed pretty far to the left from an American point of view.

By the way, if you watch political programs on the major networks in the U.S., these issues do get a full debate. If by popular media you mean MTV or other mind-numbing American TV shows then of course, you'll hear absolutely nothing.

Some of you sell Americans short and seem to think we're nothing but right-wing muppets and that Bush is pulling the strings of the American media. Not true. I just don't buy it...

@Hazza
For the record, I don't like the job Bush has done either and would like to see him go too. IMO there are just better and more convincing ways to go about it than what MM is doing. End.

@ketchup

Read this if you are sure the american media is so liberal. no point being liberal if you can't say what you want. Sounds like string pulling to me.

I know I said I wasn't going to say anything else, but I really believe that the US version of Left is far more Right than anyone elses definition. Hence there's always a lot of confusion.

For example, I don't think that the Democrats are left at all. They just aren't as right wing as the republicans. Similarly, I don't even think that Michael Moore is very left wing.

I'd be interested to hear which media outlets in the US you consider to be Left-wing. I don't think too many mainstream sources would get anywhere near the Guardian or even the BBC...

@ Ketchup - good post but Fox's top political programme - "The O'Reilly Factor" with Bill O'Reilly is hilarious - for example he claims to be a registered independent but his voter registration in longIsland says Republican.

hey not wanting to tempt fate here but...

what happens if Bush wins the next election. I mean he stole one - why not another ???

also - it occurs to me that even though we are arguing different points here - in the grand scheme of things we are all on the same side...awww group hug...

@Hazza
I agree with you. From strictly a world perspective (and I mean the developed world), even U.S. Democrats are really right-wing moderates or liberal right wingers in comparison. There are plenty of U.S. media outlets that are more or less favorites of the American left: The New York Times, The L.A. Times, National Public Radio, MTV, CNN, Hollywood in general, just to name a few...

@meckle
I've always thought that most of us were more or less on the same side...and in that spirit of brotherhood, i'll let the election stealing comment slide . I don't think Bush will win again...

@Ketchup

Fully agree with the American "left" vs. European left comment.

Having spent 2 years being forced to watch CNN for my daily news I have to admit I never spotted the Democrat bias, it was too dominated by the "what can mention to keep the idiots watching during the ads" bias.
The funniest thing I saw was during the (non) re-count in Florida, CNN, to their credit, were tired of showing yet another round of US-style deferential political interviews, and showed 15 minutes of the BBC's Newsnight instead. 2 Congressmen (Dem & Rep) being harangued by Jeremy Paxman on the stupidity of letting elected officials decide the outcome of an election, hilarious.

Seriously, there's a big problem with news companies owned by big corporations (in any country, Italy's far worse than the US), its far too easy for the corporate bottom line to get in the way of journalistic integrity (i.e. you can't say anything the viewers don't want to hear, as they'll just change the channels, and the boss will want to know why when the Nielson ratings come in)

Never read the LA Times or even heard of National Public Radio, so can't comment on those 2. However, I've read the NY times online on occasion (I have subscribed) and watch a bit of CNN at home. In my opinion, both are slightly 'Right' - not as far as Fox, obviously (which is rabidly right), but that's far from being liberal or left-wing media

It makes me wonder though that for a country that apparently has so many 'Liberals' and 'Left wingers', there is so little media to back it up.

Actually, you can download some NPR stuff from here

http://www.thislife.org/

.. and it's rather good.

Oh, and Sparcka,

Let me answer your 2 questions:

Where the rich aren't the major beneficiaries of tax cuts.


Fairer than one that executes minors and the mentally ill for a start

Wow we actually agree - I don't like the Bush tax* cuts - they hand over too much cash to rich people who a.) have too much cash anyway and b.) won't spend it and make the economy recover, and I don't believe in the death penalty either.

* I realise I'm in severe danger of death by selective quoting here, especially after Fahrenheit 9/11 @ Munich Cinemas from 29.Jul.2004

Probably best to discuss in another thread, but I absolutely do believe in the death penalty. Eye for an eye thats what I say. I would rather my taxes were going towards having these murdering scumbags put down than being spent to keep them nice and comfortable in prison...rant over

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind... Mohandas K Gandhi

But you'll notice that I actually said - executing minors or the mentally ill.

I would hope that even supporters of the death penalty wouldn't support it for these 2 groups...

With all due respect, as a foreigner, you probably wouldn't notice much difference between an American left-leaning newspaper and an American right-leaning newspaper anyway. America is different in the fact that there are few media outlets that unabashedly call themselves right or left. The differences are subtle. For example, you'd see more editorials supporting affimative action or gun control in the NY Times than in, say, the Dallas Morning News. If you want unabashed American left wing media, tune in to Air America radio. You can check it out at Air America The media outlets that I mentioned previously tend to run stories and issue opinons that are more congruent with the American left IMO but are not self-declared "left-wing media outlets".

I used to work in Atlanta with a bunch of self-proclaimed liberals who regularly criticized Rush Limbaugh even though they had never actually listened to him. I persuaded one to sit down and actually listen to the show with me and afterwards he had to concede that Rush was not as bad as he had been led to believe. Granted he wasn't converted to conservatism (wasn't my intention as I am more moderate) and didn't agree with everything that was said but he had to admit that Rush made many good points which were worthy of discussion. Lots of left-wingers and right-wingers seem to just disregard what the other side is saying without logically thinking it out or even experiencing it and that is what disturbs me the most. Criticize Bush, criticize U.S. healthcare policy, criticize all that you think is wrong but please please don't paint things (especially the USA) with a broad brush... End of rant.

Well, I grew up reading the Guardian, so it's not as if I haven't heard these sort of arguments before - in fact Bowling for Columbine reminded me why I stopped reading the Guardian.

Here's Christopher Hitchen's review of F911

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

And here's some senators complaining that he cut out there responses to his question about "Have you sent your kids to Iraq"
http://bowlingfortruth.com/fahrenheit911/warsignup.htm

It's clever editing basically, he only looks right because he asks a question and then cuts any response that he doesn't like.

Mind you, you have to admire the editing - the guy is truly a magician at what he does. In funny kind of way - any movie that annoyed me as much as Bowling For Columbine can't be all bad.

Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man

For your reading pleasure.

Unless I see it at the Sneak, I think I'll download it from the net rather than paying money to see it.

Well, Im an american living who has been living in Europe for over nine months now, with the majority of that time spent in France. Now i cant really speak for the german population, but i found that where i was in france, MM was a hero. I think that the guy is a mix of an absolute jackass and a genius. On the one side, he presents like everyone has said, that emotional compassionate side of the story that really captivates his mindless viewers. Personally, i doubt that he really gives a &%$§ about what he says. He knows how to make a stink that everybody has to hear about. He´s basically a mix between mother teressa and Don King. Hes a jackass, but he´s the people´s jackass. Oh, and dont get me started on the french...

Would be cool to see a double feature of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Michael Moore Hates America

Absolutely. Genius/jackass film maker; he makes great commentary, but passes it off as documentary, and that makes him a jackass.

I have F911 on my computer and have watched most of it in bits. It makes some excellent points and I agree wholly with a lot of what he says, then he goes and basically implies a huge conspiracy theory. If you're fairly unbiased to begin with you'll realize that putting too much stake in this guy's opinions (accepting and agreeing with all of them outright) puts you in league with black helicopter seeing, bigfoot chasing, UFO reporting tin-foil hat wearing weirdos.

Like all his other "documentaries," he presents his side and stifles or ignores really important facts which would otherwise temper what he is trying to get across. Of course, he is trying to get something across, his agenda. Documentaries are not made by people people with agendas. So see it, but understand it for what it really is (and I'm a guy who wants Bush out desperately).

What it is more than anything is entertainment, and that is sad. Yes, Bush says and does stupid and silly things which are great for a laugh ("watch this drive"), but I can't help but think this should have been taken more seriously. I dunno, perhaps I feel that way as I had family killed on 11-Sept.

Next time you take his words at face value, remember that he just said, "I am an Independent. I'm not a member of the Democratic party." which is a flat-out lie:

This is the review from the Currant Bun, Johnny Vaughan doesnt give it a rave review.

I personally think that this film wont have the desired effect that MM wants it to have.

"Fahrenheit Nine Eleven" or "Fahrenheit Nine One One"?

I've been saying Nine One One.

But in London the kiosk girl said to me, "you mean Nine Eleven?".

I was just, like, whatever.

Because if he voted "democratic" 12 years ago, that makes him a member for life? Just think of all that paper they waste every election, when they could just have reused the voting slips from last time!

Yes. he didn't just vote Democrat 12 years ago, he registered as a member of that party (you can still vote for anyone you want). You are a member of a specific party in the US until you register otherwise. It isn't an easy thing to forget either; being a member of a party means you get inundated with newspapers, campaign volunteer requests, donation requests, etc.

I had another question about american politics. What is the purposes of the democratic convention? I read a bit about it but dont quite understand. Is it to select the presidential and vice-presidential candidates? I thought it was already done and Kerry-Edwards have been chosen.

Also, why does everyone have to register as a party member and who with? Shouldnt that be personal? I mean the ballot is still secret right?

@ Kza

The ballot you actually vote with is secret. You still have to register with a state you vote in, and you have the option of registering as a member of a particular party. Basically, if you are a rank and file Democrat, checking that box means that that party will send you info on ways to help out candidates from local government all the way to the Executive Branch. You also get to vote in primary elections for your party only, which pares down the pool of candidates e.g. registered Democrats voted for Kerry over Dean, while registered Republicans had no say in who the nominee ultimately would be.

Lots of people (myself included) just register as "independant" e.g. no party affiliation (not to be confused with endorsing a candidate who him/herself claims to be an independent). You can be a registered Republican and vote Democrat or Green or whatever and nobody is the wiser.

The party conventions are the official means of nominating their candidate for president. The Republican, Democratic, Green, Whig, Communist, Constitution, etc. parties convene amongst themselves and delegates from all 50 states put in their votes for who the nominee of that party will be. That's how candidates actually get on the ballot. The delegate process is pretty complicated, more info on that here.