Movie: Fahrenheit 9/11

Now this film has just won best film at Cannes.

Does anyone think that it will be released before the presidential elections? Disney were refusing to distribute it before, but I read that Miramax were trying to buy the rights?

This is all the stuff I got from Google, thought it was funny that GWB's daughters had gone to see it against his wishes.

don't know about the release, but I'd like to see it. Since it has been shown in Cannes there should be downloads around by now, anybody?

I just hope it isn't as editted and much or Moore's other "documentaries." I anticipate that his argument will be emotional as usual. Michael Moore is so far left even the left in the US refuses to embrace him (and rightfully so). Hey, I want Bush out too, but that doesn't mean I'm going to swallow the BS coming from the radical end of my political leanings.

Phew, now that that's done. Yes, it should be out before the election or so says Moore himself.

should be hitting american screens on the 25th of June

story

The germans love him. Or at least the ones I meet do. They have all seen his films, read his books and talk about him all the time. I'm interested to see his new film though.

This guy is as much of a politician as the rest of them are, after watching BFC, you just think...God, this guy hates GWB!!

The release of this film will do one of two things -

1. Turn the undecided against GWB...or
2. Majority of people having an even bigger dislike for MM, thus strengthening GWB's campaign.

@ 3lions, that is assuming the majority ever gets to see the movie, which is doubtful as long as there is no major distributer in the US.

ps. Corrected me if I'm wrong but I thought Mirimax is owned by Disney

Mirimax is a part of disney, and disney did forbid mirimax from distributing it for political reasons. The 2 main men behind mirimax however, the Weinstein brothers have bought the US distribution rights. Its unclear what their release plans are...

Latest article about it here

And I dont believe theres any copys online just yet. Shouldnt be long though.

Many Germans, like many other Europeans and Americans for that matter, love him for one simple reason; people tend to believe that which they wish to be true and they like those beliefs to be reinfornced even when the facts are sparse.

@DW Not only in Europe, they guy won an Oscar last year so he also has his share of supporters in the US. And his argumentation is pretty convincing after all...

Anything can be convincing if you do clever edits, spin statistics and tell only one side of a story.

I asked this question a while back about Bowling for Columbine, I then went and did a bit of digging to find some of the real facts. Which is something I do whenever I watch a film or documentry that claims to be true.

I did say Americans too.

In general, his argument is only convincing if you fail to realize that his practices are anything but scrupulous. He regularly bends and shapes the words of those he interviews in the editing room, and relies far too heavily on tugging at your emotions (Inside Moore's brain: here is a teacher who's student was shot, I'll show me hugging her for 45 seconds, see, I'm a nice guy! Believe in what I say! Who needs a counter-argument in a DOCUMENTARY anyway?).

Same goes for his books.

Most Democrats would consider a Moore endorsement a kiss of death.

i'd like to quote homer simpson if i could

"people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that."

i'll still be going to see it.

According to today's NYT, Indy studio Lions Gate of Canada will be releasing the film.

Oh, sorry you may have to register with NYT, here's the article in full:

Canadian Studio Plans to Distribute Moore's 9/11 Film
By SHARON WAXMAN

Published: June 2, 2004

OS ANGELES, June 1 - The independent studio Lions Gate Films will distribute Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," which has gained wide notice for its critique of President Bush and was spurned for distribution by the Walt Disney Company.

It will be released on June 25 in about 1,000 theaters. IFC Entertainment is putting up 25 percent of the theatrical distribution costs, which could range from $8 million to $10 million, said executives involved in the deal. Showtime, which already has a deal in place with Lions Gate, will show the film on pay cable.

Harvey and Bob Weinstein, co-chairmen of Miramax, privately acquired the film last week from Disney after Disney instructed them not to distribute the film because of its political nature.

The film is critical of Mr. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq and details the Bush family's ties to powerful Saudi families like the bin Ladens. The film won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival last month.

Big studios like Warner Brothers and Paramount shied away from distributing the film, according to several people close to the negotiations. Focus Features, the Universal studio owned by General Electric, was heavily involved in the bidding, but Robert C. Wright, G.E.'s vice chairman, was called to ensure there would not be a conflict, they said.

Ultimately, the Weinsteins struck a deal with Lions Gate, a studio based in Canada that has distributed Miramax movies that have proved controversial in the past.

Jon Feltheimer, the chief executive of Lions Gate, said: "We're distributing this movie because we think it's a good movie, and a good piece of business. We don't shy away from those kinds of controversies, but we're certainly sensitive to it."

Mr. Moore said he was surprised it had taken this long to find a distributor, even after winning the Palme d'Or at Cannes. "I thought we'd have a distributor within a week," he said.

Because of Disney's rejection of the film, Harvey Weinstein wanted as many companies involved in distributing the film as possible, according to people involved with negotiating the distribution deal.

@ DrivinWest

Actually John Cusack famously fell out with Moore since Moore refused to back Gore in the previous election.

He provides an interesting and a useful a counterpoint to Fox News in the States. Come to think of it after the Jessica Lynch debacle he's about as reliable as the official US military press office.

@ Parnell

Agreed. What ever happened to true journalism? Even the BBC and NY Times have effectively twisted facts due to an increasingly obviously underlying bias.

Michael Moore can be a bit flippant and emotional in his arguments - but I think he has important things to say none-the less.

What about Greg Palast?? I've read his book and it's more hard-hitting than MM, but without the emotional blackmail involved.

@meckle

I totally agree that he has important things to say which is why I'm doubly upset that his execution is so incredibly poor. He kills his own credibility.

His arguments have to be emotional. Unfortunately, there appears to be no room for gaining popularity in US politics with cold, hard facts. I mean, look at the Berg execution for a classic example. He's one of many to die in Iraq - but showing his grieving family, etc helped the impact no end.


I don't even think he's even that left leaning. Having read a couple of his books and seen a lot of his stuff, I think he wants the following:

Greater protection and benefits for workers
Environmental awareness
An equitable tax system
Accountable government
Universal health-care
Gun Control
A rise in the quality of education
Abortion rights
A fairer justice system...there's more of course, but this is what he's looking for

He's left wing - sure, but no way is he radical. A radical left winger is often defined as a communist or an anarchist (depending on views) and he's neither. He's not even a true socialist. The US has appeared to shift so far to the right that even moderate left wing views are now viewed as radical. He is not as left-wing as Bush and his cronies are right wing.

Look at the choices in the election. On the one side, you've got a right winger in Bush - and on the other, a guy who's not quite as right, but still right of centre in Kerry.

Why hack on the only bloke apparently willing to point out just how right wing your country has become?

think if he lost some weight and dressed better he'd get a much wider platform.

Oh sure...he would be credible if he lost weight.

Just like Churchill was a shit PM because he too was a fat bastard

1) Bush's approval rating FELL as a result of this 2) the reporters who took those pictures were documenting a single moment in time. Moore regularly edits and misconstrues in order to convey his political messege.


Simple. Even if I agree that the current administration is too far Right and needs to change, building a case against them on lies is no better than what the lies they've perpetrated themselves.

I'm not talking about Bush's approval rating...but you actually do illustrate my point. Emotion gets results. Where hundreds of other deaths get no reaction, this one actually gets results.


Maybe we should talk about the Jessica Lynch then...how accurate was that then? and why was it done? to whip up emotion.


The right lies a hell of a lot more. Yet receive not a fraction of the same crap that Moore appears to in the US.

Can you give me some concrete evidence of lies? Editing is of course necessary when producing any documentary, and it's not the only one to be presented from one point of view. But what are the actual lies?

churchill is dead.

cannot be compared to moore.

churchill had class.

anyway he wasnt a fat b@stard, just big boned.
back then it was socially acceptable to be a tad over weight whereas now it is more or less frowned upon.

moore fat cunt = fact.

So if Michael Moore died of a heart attack tomorrow (not completely out of the question) then we could compare him to Churchill.

And then suddenly he would be classy and his girth would be irrelevant, no?

trailer trash.

People always get more respect and credibility after they die, look at Aiysha. I am pretty sure if they didnt know that Moore would get taken more seriously in the US after his death, he would have had an accident by now... Last thing the republican regime wants is Moores name in the mainstream news, might get the masses interested and not just the students etc.

in fairness I think moore is centre left DW.

and yes he is fat...

That's pretty subjective and can't really be proven. They all lie to a certain extent or at least misrepresent things. I couldn't assert that one side lies more than the other.

Moore receives a lot of crap because he's loud and annoying and less because of his political views. If you want a right wing example of someone who takes at least as much crap, look at Rush Limbaugh. What they have in common is that they're controversial and irreverant. In some people's eyes, that alone makes them annoying.

@Kza
If Moore were to die, more than a few members of this board would be quick to blame Bush, the CIA, the Mossad and maybe even Charlton Heston too. "OH MY GOD! He died in a chair that looks EXACTLY like the ones they use at NRA meetings!!! THIS CANNOT BE A COINCIDENCE!!!"

@ Hazza

I don't have much time, but the latest B.S. out of Moore's mouth is that he interviewed Nick Berg for the movie, but "decided not to put it in." It fits in well his B.S. about distribution of the movie; Disney did NOTHING to "block" the distribution of the movie (as Moore says), they just said they wouldn't do it themselves (fair enough, it is a private company with a huge family contingent - no sense in them getting involved in a controversial topic).

Publicity.

Yes, he is also fat, but that is one of his finer points.

Bottom line, I'll likely agree with a chunck of what he has to say, but the fact that edits interviews to seeming construe intent in his favor is flat-out lying. He may lie less than the right, but I'm not one to say the lesser of two evils is actually good.

I do agree that Moore twists stuff and makes it all look a little more extreme or whatever and uses emotion and he's not the best person to fight a fight for you, but then he is trying to sell films/books/documentaries. I mean who would watch a film that was boring, even, just and everyone wins. He just pushes the opposite side the Bush people.
I'd be interested to see if he (Moore) has had an overall negative or positive effect of people's opinions of Bush.

I'm pretty sure you mean "the Bush administration" and not "the right". I don't think the right generally lies more than the left. They're all liars...erm politicians.

Haha Flogger...If he was, he'd support Bush...

I'd still like to see a link that points to an actual lie.

I've heard a lot about these so called Michael Moore lies, but have never actually had a good example pointed out to me

How about a simple manipulation then? Easier to show.

In Bowling for Columbine, he tried to compare Canadians to Americans and show how Canada doesn't have the same gun problems as the USA. What stuck in my mind was that he asked: "Do you lock your doors?" and everyone answered "No."

Well, I immediately wondered what he meant. Did he mean, do you lock your doors when your are at home? Do you lock your doors at night? Or did he mean do you lock your doors at all? Big difference, depending on what was meant. You don't get to know how the people are answering it, other than saying no to an ambiguous question.

Then we see Moore trying some doors to houses to see if it's true. Of course, you are going to find some people with unlocked doors. You'll find them in the USA too.

Also, he compares gun statistics, citing that Canada has about the same number of guns per capita. Well, yes and no. Canada has a lot of hunting rifles, which are pretty tough for an 8 year old to take to school and start shooting with. Handguns are far more strictly controlled in Canada than in the USA.

@Hazza

Try Moore Lies which has many links including this page: Truth about Bowling

I won't personally vouch for these sites but there obviously are people calling Moore a liar and backing it up...

Hazza--

As someone who never saw Moore as a documentary film maker, and who really doesn't believe he thinks of himself as one either (though he's willing enough to take the awards that come with that designation...), I have to say, the 'Truth about Bowling' article is about the most coherent one done on Moore, from the right. He does twist facts, and just because someone's sneaky about lying doesn't make it less of a lie. We have an old saying in America--'It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is...'

If the anti-Mooreans were smart, they'd let the man hang himself, as he generally does. Instead, they have generated a few hundred different anti-Moore sites...which is not bad for his cause. As someone who is interested in the ins and outs of being an entertainer, I'd seriously consider paying cold hard cash if someone could get an anti-papa_geno site up that got half the traffic of some of the bigger anti-Moore sites. That said, the Hardy Law piece is pretty solid, if, as I think, it sometimes misses the point.

DW--have you confirmation on the Nick Berg footage being non-existent? If so, I'd be interested in being directed to it.

--in any case, I'll probably go see the movie...though I think the man shot his wad with B4C...which was an incredibly good satire, if a much less solid documentary.

@whoever mentioned his MM's weight

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...6/01/do0102.xml

As far as manipulation goes, there are loads of examples in Bowling for Columbine

1) When he goes to the "WMD factory" and asks someone if maybe the fact that the kids fathers work on missiles might have influenced there attitude to violence. The problem is that the factory makes rockets to launch satellites. MM responded to this by claiming that the satellites might be military, so it's kind of true in a way

2) When he goes into the bank and is given a gun for opening an account. It is true that you the bank gave people guns, but only after a background check - this makes his "don't you think it's a bit stupid to hand out guns in a bank line" much less funny.

3) There are loads of websites explaining how he uses misdirection to make his points.

The strange thing is, I actually agree with him on gun control, and I think he's a good comedian, but his style is so dishonest and propagandist that i find him impossible to watch. And there is a good documentary on the links between Bush and the bin Laden family waiting to be made, but it sure as hell won't be made by him.

And as far as his Fahrenheit 9/11 goes - Disney were never going to distribute it. Disney and Miramax are fundamentally unsuited for each other - you can't make money out of Disney World and Tarantino/MM films at the same time because they have incompatible target audiences.

I remember a great quote where some journalist asked if the movie had soured relations between the bosses of the two companies - some inside source said something like "it's not like they don't have enough things to argue about".

In a way I actually respect MM's marketing - selling the his new movie as one that was censored by corporare America but loved by the Cannes jury will go down very well with his target audience - basically left wing conspiracy theorists who don't question the "facts" he gives them very much.

The film will be release on June 25th in the States. Here's the story: CNN: Moore

I've just had a look at some of these lies. I don't think he's lying to distort the message. Most political commentators take a stance according to their personal viewpoints. Most omit details that don't fit their own agenda - particularly when they also make their living as an entertainer. So yeah, he exaggerated and twisted certain things. But the message is still there - and instead of thinking about the message they come up with arguements like this:


From http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016b.html

I mean, what the fuck?? The 'lie' quoted is hardly the point of what's written..It's a bit of an extreme example, but there's more in a similar vein - missing the point completely

What I fail to understand is that for whatever reason, people think he should be held to the same standards as the politicians. He shouldn't - he's not the one making the decisions. He's an entertainer - he's putting forward his point of view, and they are all good points. He's making people think and getting them to look at things more critically than they are and that's what it should be about, right? So what if he exaggerates or leaves out some stuff? He's not batting for the right-wingers. There are enough of those around and they do it too...not only that, they distort and lie far more...

And let's face it - no other left winger in the US gets as much publicity as he does and like him or not, he's pretty much all you've got. So either find someone else with a voice, or support this guy. He's pushing a good message and if Michael Moore's vision of the US was to become a reality, it would be a better place. So when others who claim to be left wing and progressive come out and disassociate themselves with him because he's a 'radical left winger', I can only shake my head.

Hazza, now that we've shown how he twists things, don't try and say "So what?". Anyone who claims to be telling the "truth" should be held to the same standards, never mind what they claim their job is.

The truth is in the final message...

Edit: Nobody can say that he's lying about the big picture. Look at Bowling for Columbine. The message is: The US has a bigger gun problem than the rest of the western world. Let's look at it.

And you know what? It's true...the US does have a bigger problem with guns.

Whose version of the truth?

Does he not mean a "bigger gun" problem? You know, like focusing on howitzers and stuff rather than your common or garden glock.

I dont feel totally comfortable sticking up for Moore as I only believe in a few snippets of what he believes in. But every news or current affairs show uses the same techniques that Moore does and presents a bias. With all the editing, and misleading questions etc. There is no such thing as total impartiality. Granted Moore is using such techniques more blatantly than a news or current affairs show, but thats fine, hes a documentary maker. Documentarys are trying to get a point across as well as the facts, whereas the news really does have an obligation to sitck to the pure truth without bias, as much as possible. If you ever do media studies you will see that almost all news articles are pushing an agenda.

I have more respect for someone who admits they have a point of view and a bias and makes it clear , than I do for someone for claims impartiality and subconsciously lets their bias slip through in such ways as word choice, facial expression etc. Sure if Moore was a news anchor you could complain, but hes not, hes doing his job.

Be thankful we have mainstream media PLUS Moore and those like him, and we dont just have to rely on mainstream media, we always have the option to check out the facts, we should be doing that before trusting the mainstream media too. We should be especially thankful that Moores message is a valuable one, in that its at least trying to result in a more peaceful, rational, planet.

OK Showem, so he didn't explain every fact when comparing the US to Canada.

However, the gun stats are correct. It may be difficult for an 8 year old to take a hunting rifle to school. But on the other hand, we all know that in the grand scheme of things, school shootings account for a very minor percentage of all gun deaths in the US.

You did exactly what people say Michael Moore does...Pointing out something whilst omitting important facts. He didn't point out what sort of guns...you failed to mention how small the percentage of school shootings is. Everybody does it. I did it too.

You're making an argument, so of course you're only going to include stuff to back up your point of view.

Hazza, compare how many people are killed with handguns as compared to being killed with rifles in general, never mind schools. Still a much lower number. I don't see your point.

@Hazza
The problem is one of credibility. Moore has been shown to distort the truth to support his cause (whether that is selling books and movie tickets or changing U.S. politics is another debate). This is sad in and of itself because there are valid points that need to be made (and are indeed made by democrats) but when you've been proven to distort the truth you just can't be trusted and even democrats recognize that and want to distance themselves from Moore.

If you're not careful some of us are going to think you advocate "the ends justify the means" school of thinking which is scary in and of itself. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt however. As Showem said, who decides that the ends are just?

@parnell
Did you actually visit the site(s) I linked? Maybe one or two points are debatable but there is enough there to show Moore distorting the truth.


So you're sure it's not reality. To turn your words around, one could argue that because you LIKE his message that you refuse to question whether or not he is really telling the truth.