I agree. I am by no means of fan of President Bush. I do however accept the argument that he was attempting to look calm for everyone involved and that 7 minutes was not crucial.

I also thought that while some of the footage, particulary of the war going on overseas was shocking and informative the film as a whole was no more than propaganda. The editing was not biased, it was sensationalist. Many, many aricles including the one honeychile have pointed out that several things Michael Moore cites aren't true. One example is the assertion that Saddam Hussein and his regime had never killed an American.

Furthermore, I thought a lot of things in the film were just gratituous of Michael Moore, like the driving around reading the Patriot Act, asking congressmen to send their children to war, endless footage of the mom who lost her son. I kinda felt like I was watching lowest common denominator manipulation. I went to a Henry Rollins spoken word a couple of months ago. I thought Henry gave an intellectual speech on the Iraqi conflict and had more things to say that I'd never heard about like The Soldier of Truth and the things she'd said about the real reason for the Iraqi invasion. All I got from Michael Moore is that there were no weapons of mass destruction, we were over there for oil. I already knew that.

I'm not going to say anything about the movie until I see it.

As far as Bush staying with the kids on 9/11, I think it was actually appropriate. I think if he had left suddenly, it would have freaked the kids out. Besides, it was a children's book--even for him, it wouldn't have taken too long to finish.

At the end of the day nobody is a saint. You line my pockets with gold and I will talk Democrat this, Democrat that. Moore makes money from this. This isn't him being a saint.

I think people should just buy a ticket to another movie at the same theatre and then see it. That way you pay for a movie and he doesn't get the royalty so you don't support him. Of course the liberals who do support his work can do what they want but that's not advice for them.

-Rudey

Apparantley the movie made more this weekend than any other film -- $21 million. That's more than "Bowling for Columbine" made in its entire run.

There's no question there is political motivation here. Seems like just about everything is politically motivated at the moment. I think it's a little unfortunate to call it a "documentary" which implies (at least to me) unbiased journalism.

I think most of us know how creative editing, writing and sound can be manipulated. Remember the debate before "Sorority Life" on MTV?

Neither candidate's organization has been particularly upstanding in this Presidential race. I'm pretty tired of both sides.

This is not to infer that Moore is part of the Kerry Campaign, but rather someone with strong beliefs and the vehicle to deliver them.

You could download it off the internet ;)

Please note, I DO NOT Condone stealing

Thank you, that's EXACTLY what I thought. What the frack was he supposed to do - say "sorry kids, I gotta go because we are under attack"? Like Hitchens said in the article (thanks for the link by the way), if he had done that, he would be accused of acting rashly and rushing to get the war machine primed. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Nixon went through the same crap.

Oh, and as far as the election goes, I just need to state that the Democratic party didn't seem to have a prob with Joe Kennedy's use of mafia connections to put his baby boy in office. What comes around, goes around.

That was just a different day as far as the Presidency is concerned. The press actually knew about his affair with Monroe but didn't report it. Could you even imagine that being the case these days?

I haven't seen the movie. Does it show Mayor Rudy Giuliani? I have seen videotape of him walking around downtown New York with his staff trying to get a handle on everything that was happening. He was very brave in the face of terror.

I had already seen the tape of the President reading to the children. I agree with Munchkin that it was appropriate. I'm more disturbed by information that came out about the FAA during the 9/11 hearings.

I don't know if 9/11 could have been prevented or not, but I do know that a lot of key officials ignored intelligence pertaining to 9/11, Bin Laden, and terrorism.

Actually, it made more than any other documentary, not any film. I'm not sure if it broke an opening box office record.

No, he is not mentioned.

Hey folks, for the most part this conversation has stayed pretty reasonable, but please be kind to one another. If this degenerates into political bashing, I'll lock it down. This is the Entertainment forum, and we should be discussing the film, not exchanging political blows without reference to the Moore film.

Back to your regularly scheduled racous debate.

Thanks Leslie. How can someone make a documentary about 9/11 and not show Mayor Giuliani?!

DZHBrown, I think that the only ones who could have stopped the attacks were the FAA and airport security. I do know that airport security stopped one of the terrorist.

Anyway, I haven't seen the movie so I shouldn't speculate.

I thought NPR reported this morning that, for this past weekend, it made more than any film, period.

Is that not correct?

Not that I particularly care, but that would be fairly unusual for a "documentary" I would think.

Because it's not a documentary and it's not about 9/11.

-Rudey

I believe it was #2 and Dodgeball was #1. Har.

I saw Dodgeball again. The first time I thought it was funny but not amazing. The second time I definitely liked it more. This is a good movie.

-Rudey

that is what i read this morning. for the weekend, it was the top film at the box office.

Just speculating but, the film is about what was done poorly between Bush's election through 9/11 to the current war. It wasn't really about 9/11, and MM doesn't show much footage from post-9/11 NY anyway, so there was no need to show Mayor Guiliani.

From E-Online:
This is not only the best opening ever for a documentary, it's already the most money ever taken in by a documentary ever, beating Moore's anti-gun Bowling for Columbine, which has taken in $21.5 million since opening in October 2002.

NPR could be right, but I don't think so.

Dodgeball fell to 3rd behind Farenheit 9-11 (#1) and White Chicks (#2).

It's not a documentary -- at least according to the definition given on dictionary.com

doc·u·men·ta·ry
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

****

It's more like this:

prop·a·gan·da ( P )
n.
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

I don't think many people disagree with that.

it is called a documentary because that is the style or format that is used in the movie. Even a propaganda film (and MM says "this is my opinion") is called a documentary.

Time for a new word perhaps....propumentary ...docuganda?

Just for our mutual clarification:

According to iwon

"LOS ANGELES (AP) - Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" took in a whopping $21.8 million in its first three days, becoming the first documentary ever to debut as Hollywood's top weekend film.

If Sunday's estimates hold when final numbers are released Monday, "Fahrenheit 9/11" would set a record in a single weekend as the top-grossing documentary ever outside of concert films and movies made for huge-screen IMAX theaters."

I'd agree with a new word. I think the use of "documentary" is misleading and reflects unfairly on thousands of real documentaries that are out there and based on fact.

I don't mean this to be a swipe at Moore, but the vast majority of his work is based on his very far far left-wing opinion.

Isn't it ironic that he's a millionaire off of this stuff? He should voluntarily pay higher taxes.

No that's not what medical research groups are and documentaries are not all "propaganda". And impeachments, lynchmobs? What known conservative director? What movies have been made? What are you basing this on? Anything? Anything at all??

Anyway from The National Review, a very liberal publication:
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i...s&s=just062804
DAILY EXPRESS
Conflation Rate
by Richard Just

Only at TNR Online | Post date 06.28.04
A mainstream liberal consensus on Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 has emerged quickly. It goes something like this: Moore's a nutty conspiracy theorist, and parts of the movie--in which he suggests, among other things, that we invaded Afghanistan not because of 9/11 but because we wanted to build a natural gas pipeline--showcase Moore at his least responsible. But he's also a talented polemicist and filmmaker; and as a result, the second half of the movie--in which he uses the story of Lila Lipscomb, a grieving military mother, to examine why it is only the poor and working class who sacrifice in times of war--is both profound and smart. In The New York Times, A.O. Scott called the interviews with Lipscomb the "most moving sections" of the film. If the folks with whom I saw the movie provide any indication, audiences across the country will leave the theater so moved by Lipscomb's story that they will forgive Fahrenheit 9/11 its often-incoherent points and poorly supported accusations. That, I suspect, is exactly what Moore wanted: to wrap assertions that can only be described as odd--such as his insistence that the military is failing to adequately patrol miles of deserted Oregonian coast--in the heart-breaking story of a mother's loss and the legitimate observation that America's system of military service asks too much of the poor and too little of elites....

-Rudey

If that is all this columnist got out of that portion of the film (poor vs. "elite"), then he has completely missed the point of Mrs. Lipscomb's story.

Perhaps you should read the whole thing...or you can tell us what makes you more qualified than "this columnist"?

Anyway here is another snippet of a review:
Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
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.

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.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His latest book, Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship, is out in paperback. Also, he served with the Nation (a much more liberal piece).

-Rudey
--Do you even know how to sail?

I don't know.
Everything I've seen about Michael Moores points to two things

a) He's a drama-king
b) He WANTS to piss you off

I've read 3 of his books, and will be seeing Fah. 9/11 soon. It doesn't surprise me that it's unfactual. I think Moore is out to piss people off and get y'all talking.

But I agree - if it's a documentary of anything - it is of his journey in the film. Is there such a thing as an "Editorial Documentary"?

It's not "unfactual," although some things are omitted to suit MM's purpose.
But MM has obviously done his job, because we ARE talking about it.

Thanks for answering my questions, Leslie. Maybe I will go see the movie.

I agree that it would be really hard for MM to top Roger & Me.

I'm planning on going to see it.

No Problem!
I haven't seen Roger & Me, but I hear it's great. I think I will rent it.

Just got back from the movie... over all not bad, although I felt he was lifting a footage from the CBC; all the Bush-Bin Laden thing has been done to death up hear in various news exposes... overall it was very entertaining and pretty much what I expected.

I don't think you could call the movie a documentary though, because the film-maker was pushing his view point through-out and he didn't adequately explore the subject matter from other perspectives... I'd call it a expose or something else along those lines... a good example of a documentary was "Fog of War" were the information was more or less presented and the viewer could make an unpressured opion of the piece.

Does it have a cartoon in it like the last one did? That's the only reason I'd go- otherwise I already know what Moore will show/say- I think we all do.

True. He does present things in an entertaining way. I may disagree with him on nearly everything he says, but I'll watch his stuff because it entertains me. Kind of like Spielberg.

I'm going to buy a ticket to see The Notebook and sneak in. I'd hate for these guys to get any of my money. I'm really curious about it though............should be very very interesting.

He's not "unfactual" . . . he's just ridiculous. He plays logical fallacies to the extreme - which i love when i'm taking the LSAT or trying to make out w/ my WI girls, but hate when it's time to play "real politics"

Yes, well done to Michael Moore, because he is provocative. However, he doesn't mean to stop there - he truly wants to brainwash everyone into thinking he is right... or that's how it seems to me.

I don't mind too much. He is talented. I just wish people would quit calling his works documentaries, and start calling them the op.-ed. pieces that they are.

marketing the military
 

Uno momento, por favor. Just wanna take a moment and point out that I don't find it surprising in the least that kids these days who enlist are surprised by what they find in boot camp and when they are called into service.

After all, the military has won major advertising and marketing awards for the "image overhaul" that it's performed on itself in the media that it uses. There's absolutely no way that you can say they aren't targeting a particular audience with the whole "it's a super-cool adventure" thing going on, that you don't necessarily have to be "book smart" or what not to be a part of it. And they most definitely play on the whole financed education part of it.

If you've grown up in a time where there hasn't been a major war that has been hugely publicized in the media until now, then yes, the reality of what the military is really about could easily get overlooked if you're not from a certain background that perhaps has family in the military, etc.

There's a reason the Army and Navy are case studies in advertising and marketing classes these days, so really, whose fault is it if some eighteen year old kid that doesn't have that background is "deluded" or doesn't know what they are getting into? They certainly aren't showing glossy pictures of what's really going on in the nitty gritty business of the military at the recruitment center...

Amen!

Re: marketing the military
 

I'm gonna call B.S. on that. It's called a History book or a T.V. It's not hard to figure out what the military does. What branch of the government do they think fights these wars? Department of Human Services? They know damn well what they're getting into. They just don't want to earn the perks they get from being in the military.

Re: Re: marketing the military
 

Are you enlisted?