Fahrenheit 9/11

[Colleen Thomas]

Sigh, why can't people get into long debates like this about filmmakers like Kubrick?

Moore is a leftist. His movies come from his personal viewpoints of course. Just as Peter Jackson's trilogy came from his love of the books and Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket came from an anti-war position. These things are incontestable. Yes, he uses a documentary style so his clips at least are real. You can see in the way it goes where he's making a leap of judgement and where he is not and where he's proposing a theory. These demarcations are clear. Is Moore anti-bush? Hell yes, he's a leftist. Does that mean that his clips of Bush are not real? No, it doesn't mean that. Politics aside, what is the movie? A mere documentary style piece with a leftist political viewpoint. Nothing more. It's not glorious unadulterated truth with apolitical beauty, but it's not true propaganda either.

In essence, what's the political point? The right will avoid it because Moore is a leftist and may grow to hate him more and the left will watch it and merely end up hating Bush more. At the end of the day, nothing changes but people getting pissed.

Those who watch it, great. Those who don't, great. It doesn't matter how many see it or don't. It really doesn't. Now pass over the popcorn, Full Metal Jacket is in the DVD.

Neither Kubric, nor Jackson present their materials in a documentary format. It's decieving, because people have come to expect documentaries to present facts. I don't really think those on the right could hate Moore any more than they already do. I don't think those on the left could hate Bush anymore than they do.

I don't advocate people not watching it if they wish to. I do advocate them going in to it knowing it's propaganda. It fits the classic definition of propaganda. It fits my personal defintion, which is slightly more refined than the dictionary version, in that I feel you have to be trying to hurt someone to be presenting true propaganda.

Much of what is put out by enviormentalists is classified as propaganda by the right. To me, most of what enviormentalists put out isn't propaganda, because there is an absence of malice. The majority of their ads urge awareness, or urge people to take action to get stronger regulation into place. There is no intent to hurt anyone and thus, in my view, it isn't propaganda. Although it does fit the classic definition.

Moore's movies are propaganda. There is a definite intent to harm. In the case of F 911 he admits the intent to harm is directed personally against the Bush family. It fits the classic definition in all forms. It fits my more stringent definition as well.

I have studied propaganda, it's origins, methodology and the boom experienced when mass media came into it's own. Written propaganda, like Paine's common sense was propaganda, but with a very limited audience. Spoken propaganda, such as Lord Haw Haw, Joseph Geobbles, or the O.S.S. "Black" propaganda outfits was more powerful as it could reach more people and didn't require literacy. Now propaganda comes to you with pictures & sounds. Some of it is quite elegant, using a photo or video montage to evoke an emotive response while crafting that response to identify with a message. It's high tech, employing not only pictures and words, but psychological evaluations and some sceintific principals. The very height of the art is to present it in such a way that you don't even realize you are being manipulated.

I don't know how good Moore is with it. I don't have a firm grounding in cinematography and since I lack a firm grounding in his chosen medium, I can't make a value judgement on the level of his craft. On the surface I would say he is pretty adept, considering the hatred he has provoked on the right. That would be jumping to a conclusion, though, because Rush is about as subtle as a handgrenade and he is throughly hated by the left.

His method is not particularly original. It hearkens back to news reels. As person's talent isn't displayed in their method, so much as in what they do with that method and medium. My jury is still out on Moore. At present I hold him to be in the same category as Geobbles or Pierce, good but not great. The possibility exits that he the next great one, the Griffeth or Leni R. of our time, but that won't be known for some time. If Farenheight or Bowling become classics of the art, then we will know.

I tend to believe they won't. It seems to me the appeal is to throughly rooted in the left. In effect, preaching to the chior. If, however, a significant number of people in the center buy into it, then Kudos will have to be given. Only time will tell if he is a master of craft or just one of many who were good, but not great.

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Perhaps I would be if I had any clue as to who you are. Unfortunately, this is the first of your posts that I've seen--First and last.

Edited: Ah, now I see why you suddenly popped up out of nowhere. I said something vaguely unflattering of your fascist poetical muse. Faux lesbian internet love, how sweet.

When last I checked, a central tenet of fascism was ignorance. The fascist regimes that come readily to mind all abhored intelligengent, literate people. Hitler sent them to concentration camps, or had them murdered as he did in Poland. Franco made them dissappear. Mussolini had them branded as monarchists and watched by the secret police.

When speaking on the subject of propaganda, I am well informed. I have a degree in history and have taken courses in the art of the propagandist.

You deride me for my knowledge of what I am speaking about. In essence, because I am educated on the subject you feel the need to be snide and throw stones.

Which of us is closer to being a facist?

-Colly

 

[minsue]

Perhaps I would be if I had any clue as to who you are. Unfortunately, this is the first of your posts that I've seen--First and last.

Edited: Ah, now I see why you suddenly popped up out of nowhere. I said something vaguely unflattering of your fascist poetical muse. Faux lesbian internet love, how sweet.

Thank you for reading. And, presumably, for voting seeing as both of my submissions have received a 1 in the last 12 hours. It's good to have a dedicated fan.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Perhaps I would be if I had any clue as to who you are. Unfortunately, this is the first of your posts that I've seen--First and last.

Edited: Ah, now I see why you suddenly popped up out of nowhere. I said something vaguely unflattering of your fascist poetical muse. Faux lesbian internet love, how sweet.

Excuse me, there's only ONE sarcastic bitch on the AH and that's me.

Faux lesbian internet love? Get real, you pretentious drag queen.

 

[shereads]

If your intent is to harm, then you are making a propaganda film. If your intent is to inform, then you are making a dcoumentary. In the case of your example a black filmaker could make a film about the Klan only with the intent to inform. Te information is damning enough without doctoring or intent to harm. Similarly, a documentary on Hitler needs no intent to harm, the facts are damning enoungh without it.

"Harm" versus "inform" is a word game. You'll never convince me that a film made about the Klan by anyone except another white supremacist would not have an anti-Klan agenda, and therefore have been made with the intent to "harm." The semi-documentary film "Mississippi Burning" dramatizes events from the Civil Rights era, and I don't doubt that white supremacists could recount every moment in the movie that departed from a strict, unaltered presentation of the facts. They would be missing the point, and deliberately so.

By the same token, Farenheit 911 will no doubt be picked apart, frame by frame by Bush's supporters. What they can't negate is the overwhelming evidence that support's Moore's premise: The president lied to take us to war; the president either invented or went along with the invention of a Saddam connection with 9/11, either with the intent or with a convenient side benefit of diverting attention from the Saudis with whom he and his family have decades-long business relationships.

Unlike "Missisipppi Burning," there's no need for a filmmaker to fictionalize these events to make a compelling drama; they aren't part of the distant past; they're happening now and we're paying the consequences.

I haven't heard Michael Moore say, "I want to harm the Bush administration," but he has said that the man deserves to be held accountable for his lies and that he is angry as hell that the alledgedly liberal press failed to ask the questions they're asking now - before we went to war, and while it may still have been possible to achieve justice for the victims of 9/11.

This is one of those cases where informing = harming.

The Willie Horton sequence is not an example of twisting the truth; it's a replication of what Lee Atwater admitted having done during the campaign: he altered the presentation of facts about Horton's crimes and the timeline, to make a more dramatic story that would inflame voters against the governor who pardoned Horton. Which brings us to the subject of campaign commercials. If Republicans spent half as much time scrutinizing their party's campaign commercials as they do trying to discredit Michael Moore, they'd find that facts are repeatedly taken out of context to make the opposition look anti-military, weak on crime, or in the case of Al Gore, to create the myth that he couldn't be trusted to tell the truth. (The myth that Gore claimed to have invented the internet is an example; another is their use of Kerry's voting record on weapons, without mentioning that Dick Cheney had opposed many of the same weapons as unnecessary and wasteful.)

I was thinking last night after I logged off, whether the "intent to harm" couldn't be applied to all investigative journalism that uncovers ugly truths about public figures. It's not hard to think of examples that were demonized at the time they occurred, but in hindsight are accepted as having done a necessary public service. Before Woodward & Bernstein published "All the President's Men," Watergate was a confusing string of news reports that had no context for many Americans. Something about Cubans burglarizing Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office and people blaming President Nixon. The book did with Watergate what Moore is attempting to do with Farenheit 911: put the string of events into a coherent context, so that the enormity of the evil is revealed.

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,

Thank you for posting a bit of evidence. You deserve credit for that. But most was not about Fahrenheit, which is the thread topic, and you were asked about.

It's a simple claim:

Saudi royals, and Bin Ladens got an fast exit from the US, courtesy of the Federal gov., (be it Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Director FBI). This, I understand was within a day or two of 9-11, and all normal flying had NOT fully resumed for the US. I understand the number is about 142.

Is it true or false?

Let's look at your posting
In his film, Moore claims that those bin Laden relatives living in the United States were allowed to leave the country without being properly interviewed by authorities.

Moore: "They were asked for their passports. They were asked a couple of questions and that's it."

Lauer: "The 9/11 Commission perhaps disputes that."

Moore: "No they don't."

Lauer: "They say 22 of 26 people on those flights were interviewed."

Moore: "They have not issued a final report on that."

Lauer: "It's not final, but let me read you what it says: ‘The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security.’ It goes on to say 22 of the 26 people on the bin Laden flight were interviewed. This information was released in April. Your final cut of the movie doesn't have that in it."

Oops.
----

The issue seems to be, what's an 'interview'; was it 'proper' or perfunctory.

Since Sher has researched this, perhaps I'll leave to her this little point.
-----

You commit an elementary logical fallacy, with all your talk of intent. There's no simple relation of intent to truth. IF, for instance, you once actually robbed a bank and got arrested, I might find out, and post the data here. That would presumably be to embarrass (even harm) you. But, the hypothetical fact is still there.

Let's look at the problems of your main claims:

CT: Propaganda:
1.The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

I can live with this, with the caveat that this def is neutral as regards truth. IOW, being 'propaganda' in *your* sense doesn't necessarily mean it's other than fact. This accords with standard usage, see below.

[...]
Moore's movies are propaganda. There is a definite intent to harm. In the case of F 911 he admits the intent to harm is directed personally against the Bush family. It fits the classic definition in all forms. It fits my more stringent definition as well.

Yes, in your sense, Moores films are propaganda. And though you like to talk of Goebbels and Riefenstahl along with Moore, you don't mention the propaganda films Reagan help make, or participated in.


[...]
In summation. He isn't presenting the literal turth. He isn't presenting the factual truth.

That's the clear logical error, since 'propaganda' (or 'agenda') does not indicate lack of 'factual truth.' And you've only shown 'propaganda.'


He has an agenda. He uses his movies to carry out that agenda. That agenda, by his own words, is to hurt someone. His work, does not qualify as documentary,

The first two sentences is true. BUT I'm unaware of any definition of 'documentary' which says it must be free of agenda. Can you furnish one??? (IOW, I have no idea if your last sentence is true, since you didn't back up the claim.)


since he is distorting some facts, ignoring others, misrepresenting others and just plain making up others as he goes along. It's propaganda and he is a propagandist.

There's the fallacy again. You argue from 'agenda' to 'making up'[inventing a falsehood].

Then you slide back to your neutral definition.

Again, I ask, NOT whether Moore hates GWB, but whether Moore's main contentions are true or false.??

Did Saudi Royals and Binladins get a very fast and facilitated exit just after 9-11. Were they properly interviewed?

I hope you'll give your opinion and evidence and not keep getting into fallacious leaps (e.g., from 'agenda' to untruth).

I appreciate your looking into the matter.

----
Merriam Webster on 'propaganda', the following seems most relevant, and is likewise neutral as regards truth:

3 a : doctrines, ideas, arguments, facts, or allegations spread by deliberate effort through any medium of communication in order to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause <brushed aside the peace proposals as mere propaganda>

It's clear the 'propaganda' may be facts or merely 'allegations'

 

[CharleyH]

Faux-lesbians, fascists, bombs, politics? Thank god, we have FINALLY gotten to a discussion of Passolini's 'Salo'.

 

[Pure]

Colly, just for the record

Merriam Webster, unabridged:
Main Entry: 1 doc·u·men·ta·ry

Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: |däky|mentr], ]i also ||men.tr] or däkymn.ter]
Function: adjective
Etymology: 1document + -ary
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <documentary evidence>

2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art <documentary annotations> <a careful documentary writer>; broadly : having or claiming the objective quality, authority, or force of documentation in the representation of a scene, place, or condition of life or of a social or political problem or cause : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE, REPRESENTATIONAL -- used of works of literature, the theater, art, photography, radio and TV programs

It's pretty clear a 'documentary' has to have documents/evidence to back it up. And a documentary must be factual.

Whether it has an 'agenda' seems not to be mentioned. As far as I see, the def. is neutral as regards 'agenda'. (Unless the agenda were to tell lies.) Do you agree?


So all the twisting and turning gets back to this: Are Moore's main claims in 9-11 factual. I do not care about his emotions, intentions, what he had for breakfast, whether he cheated on his wife.

Is the claim about rapid Arab-elite exit factual???

 

[Colleen Thomas]

"Harm" versus "inform" is a word game. You'll never convince me that a film made about the Klan by anyone except another white supremacist would not have an anti-Klan agenda, and therefore have been made with the intent to "harm." The semi-documentary film "Mississippi Burning" dramatizes events from the Civil Rights era, and I don't doubt that white supremacists could recount every moment in the movie that departed from a strict, unaltered presentation of the facts. They would be missing the point, and deliberately so.

By the same token, Farenheit 911 will no doubt be picked apart, frame by frame by Bush's supporters. What they can't negate is the overwhelming evidence that support's Moore's premise: The president lied to take us to war; the president either invented or went along with the invention of a Saddam connection with 9/11, either with the intent or with a convenient side benefit of diverting attention from the Saudis with whom he and his family have decades-long business relationships.

I haven't heard Michael Moore say, "I want to harm the Bush administration," but he has said that the man deserves to be held accountable for his lies and that he is angry as hell that the alledgedly liberal press failed to ask the questions they're asking now - before we went to war, and while it may still have been possible to achieve justice for the victims of 9/11.

This is one of those cases where informing = harming.

The Willie Horton sequence is not an example of twisting the truth; it's a replication of what Lee Atwater admitted having done during the campaign: he altered the presentation of facts about Horton's crimes and the timeline, to make a more dramatic story that would inflame voters against the governor who pardoned Horton. Which brings us to the subject of campaign commercials. If Republicans spent half as much time scrutinizing their party's campaign commercials as they do trying to discredit Michael Moore, they'd find that facts are repeatedly taken out of context to make the opposition look anti-military, weak on crime, or in the case of Al Gore, to create the myth that he couldn't be trusted to tell the truth. (The myth that Gore claimed to have invented the internet is an example; the use of Kerry's voting record on weapons, without mentioning that Dick Cheney had opposed many of the same weapons as unnecessary and wasteful.)

I was thinking last night after I logged off, whether the "intent to harm" couldn't be applied to all investigative journalism that uncovers ugly truths about public figures. It's not hard to think of examples that were demonized at the time they occurred, but in hindsight are accepted as having done a necessary public service. Before Woodward & Bernstein published "All the President's Men," Watergate was a confusing string of news reports that had no context for many Americans. Something about Cubans burglarizing Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office and people blaming President Nixon. The book did with Watergate what Moore is attempting to do with Farenheit 911: put the string of events into a coherent context, so that the enormity of the evil is revealed.

Sher:

Moore: "It definitely has a point of view, that's absolutely correct. But I'm not a member of the Democratic Party. If you know anything about me, anybody who's followed me, I'm the anti-Democrat. I have railed against the Democrats for a long time. They have been a weak-kneed, wimpy party that hasn't stood up to the Republicans. They let the working people down across this country. I rallied against Clinton when he was in office. I didn't vote for him in ‘96. I didn't vote for Gore in 2000. This is not a partisan issue with me, this is not me trying to –"

Lauer: "Not a personal attack on the Bush family."

Moore: "Oh yeah. It's that. If you'd asked the question that way."

Those are Moore's words. How much more explicit would you need to see to admit the man has a hard-on for the Bush family and is out to keelhaul them? That it's personal?

A documentary about the Klan, The Thrid Reich, The SS, The Kemer Rouge, etc. etc. needs only to inform. You don't need an agenda. The facts are so terribly awful and readily apparent that an intent to harm would be redundant. On the converse, if you were to make a film that was pro any of these groups, you would have to be selective of what you showed and duplicitous in the extreme to do so. With an intent to harm the victims of these groups.

Moore has an axe to grind. And he does so, apparently. In order to present the story in its most damageing form he admits to excluding contrary, mitigating or non detrimental facts.

I am not a Bush apologist. There are damning facts in abundance and anyone with the ability to think critically can see further support of those facts in current affairs. And if you love Moore for presenting the case against Bush, that's fine too.

But the man has an agenda and an axe to grind. You may have an axe to grind and an agenda, and still make a documentary. If however, you begin to alter facts, distort the truth, omit facts that are counter to your agenda etc., then you have left the realm of documentary. You are no longer striving to inform, you are striving to mold opinion. In short, you are a propagandist. Moore most defintely is.

If his own words in an interview don't convince you he has an axe to grind, nothing I say will. If his own words showing ommission of contrary evidence dosen't make room for you to allow he is playing fast & loose with the facts, nothing I say will.

I love you to death, but there are some things we will never see eye to eye on. Clinton is one, Regan is one, I think we will have to add Moore to the group

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Colly
A documentary about the Klan, The Thrid Reich, The SS, The Kemer Rouge, etc. etc. needs only to inform. You don't need an agenda. The facts are so terribly awful and readily apparent that an intent to harm would be redundant.

This is equivocating. You don't *need* an agenda.. true...but you might have one. Indeed all US propaganda about the third reich was meant to harm it. The amount of truth in the propaganda is a separate issue, though as you say, damaging truths are more easily available for really evil entities.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly, just for the record

Merriam Webster, unabridged:
Main Entry: 1 doc·u·men·ta·ry

Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: |däky|mentr], ]i also ||men.tr] or däkymn.ter]
Function: adjective
Etymology: 1document + -ary
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <documentary evidence>

2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art <documentary annotations> <a careful documentary writer>; broadly : having or claiming the objective quality, authority, or force of documentation in the representation of a scene, place, or condition of life or of a social or political problem or cause : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE, REPRESENTATIONAL -- used of works of literature, the theater, art, photography, radio and TV programs

It's pretty clear a 'documentary' has to have documents/evidence to back it up. And a documentary must be factual.

Whether it has an 'agenda' seems not to be mentioned. As far as I see, the def. is neutral as regards 'agenda'. (Unless the agenda were to tell lies.) Do you agree?


So all the twisting and turning gets back to this: Are Moore's main claims in 9-11 factual. I do not care about his emotions, intentions, what he had for breakfast, whether he cheated on his wife.

Is the claim about rapid Arab-elite exit factual???

Are they factual? I have no idea. I haven't seen, nor do I plan to see the movie.

Has he played fast & loose with the facts in past productions? Yes he has. Does that neccissarily mean he has done so here? No, but the circumstantial evidence would lead a prudent man to suspect he has, especially in light of his admited ommission of fact that runs counter to his assertions.

Does he have an agenda that is hateful? Why, yes he does, by his own admission. Not only hateful towards the administration, but personally hateful towards the Bush family. Does that preclude him being objective? No. Would a prudent person assume he was being objective? I don't think so.

Does his movie conform to the classic, value neutral definition of propaganda? Yes, it does. Does it conform to my own personal definition? Yes again. Is there a definition of propaganda it does not confrom to? Not that I have seen.

On the other hand, is there a definition of Documentary it does not conform to? Why yes, yes there is.

doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting
fictional matter, as in a book or film.

It dosen't conform to all the defs of documentary. It does conform to all the def's of propaganda. There is hateful intent behind it.

Call it what you wish, it's a free country. I call it propaganda.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

But the man has an agenda and an axe to grind.

I never said he didn't. That's simply irrelevent to whether he is showing the truth in his film. You say that he should also include "non-detrimental facts" in order to be considered honest. Why, when we've been fed a daily diet of the Bush/Cheney version(s) of 9/ll - and when the side of the story that Moore is covering have been relegated to the back pages? Short of repeating everything Bush/Cheney have told us, could anyone make a film about them that would meet your qualifications of a documentary? Should a film about the Klan also show the good side of Klansmen - that the Grand Dragon pays his yard man a fair wage, and is said to be a really nice guy?

To document something on film is to make a documentary. Moore is documenting the side he believes the press has been negligent in covering.

Before I criticized Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, I saw their work. You haven't seen any of Moore's films, but you seem to have accepted as fact that he distorts the truth, based on allegations by people who have an axe to grind.

I know where you stand on Reagan, but not where you stand on his support of Saddam Hussein during the use of chemical weapons against Iran, or his complicity in the hostage trade with Iran. I'm aware of Reagan's accomplishments, but when I tally the harm he did, the good doesn't outweight it.

If I were making a documentary about him, my purpose would be to counter what amounts to historic revisionism. Would I need to include the points of view that have already been so well covered in the press in the aftermath of Reagan's death? If instead, I just concentrated on educating people about the crimes he committed in office, would I be making a documentary or hate propoganda? I think your answer to that would depend on whether you want to know all of the truth, or whether you would prefer to remember the man as a hero. That's your choice. But it wouldn't be fair to accuse people of distorting his record if they attempt to show the less-publicized side.

Edited to add: one of the most powerful indictments of Iran-Contra is a book that isn't even about Iran-Contra; it's Terry Waite's account of his 5 years as a hostage, "Taken On Faith." His references to the Reagan administration are minimal, but incriminating by implication. He only learned about Iran-Contra when he was finally released. He put two and two together, remembered details of his meeting with Oliver North a few hours before his kidnapping, and arrived at the conclusion that he was likely set up by North to cover up the Reagan administration's illegal arms-for-hostages trade deal. If I applied the same standard you apply to Moore's film about the Bush administration to Waite's book, I'd have to say he was unfair to Reagan because he didn't show the positive side of the illegal arms trade - the funneling of funds to the Contras to fight communism in Nicaragua. I happen to think that the end didn't justify the means. So you might say that Terry Waite and I both have an axe to grind.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I never said he didn't. That's simply irrelevent to whether he is showing the truth in his film. You say that he should also include "non-detrimental facts" in order to be considered honest. Why, when we've been fed a daily diet of the Bush/Cheney version(s) of 9/ll - and when the side of the story that Moore is covering have been relegated to the back pages? Short of repeating everything Bush/Cheney have told us, could anyone make a film about them that would meet your qualifications of a documentary? Should a film about the Klan also show the good side of Klansmen - that the Grand Dragon pays his yard man a fair wage, and is said to be a really nice guy?

To document something on film is to make a documentary. Moore is documenting the side he believes the press has been negligent in covering.

Before I criticized Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, I saw their work. You haven't seen any of Moore's films, but you seem to have accepted as fact that he distorts the truth, based on allegations by people who have an axe to grind.

I know where you stand on Reagan, but not where you stand on his support of Saddam Hussein during the use of chemical weapons against Iran, or his complicity in the hostage trade with Iran. I'm aware of Reagan's accomplishments, but when I tally the harm he did, the good doesn't outweight it.

If I were making a documentary about him, my purpose would be to counter what amounts to historic revisionism. Would I need to include the points of view that have already been so well covered in the press in the aftermath of Reagan's death? If instead, I just concentrated on educating people about the crimes he committed in office, would I be making a documentary or hate propoganda? I think your answer to that would depend on whether you want to know all of the truth, or whether you would prefer to remember the man as a hero. That's your choice. But it wouldn't be fair to accuse people of distorting his record if they attempt to show the less-publicized side.

[/QUOTE]

I haven't seen Birth of a Nation, but I do have a pretty good idea of what it's about. Haven't seen Olympia either for that matter, but I also know what it is about. I have seen Triumph of Will, and I am pretty amazed at how well it conformed to what I read it was like.

I would have prefered to leave Reagan and Clinton out of this, but, since you wish to go there, all right. A documentary is supposed to be objective presentation of the facts. So, if you want to show RR's many crimes, as long as you present the evidence for those crimes along with the evidence against those crimes, you are being objective. You do not have to present facts about the good he did, the man he was or anything else. If you present only the facts that say he did do something wrong and omit facts that run counter to that evidence, then you aren't being objective. So yes, you could make a documentary about Reagan's crimes and do so without being hateful. If your intent is to inform, and you present all the evidence and leave the judgement to the viewer. If you ignored facts that ran counter to your claims, then it becomes hateful propaganda.

Having an axe to grind could be irrelevant to whether he is showing the truth, but it isn't. He isn't presenting all of the facts and leaving the decision to the viewer, he is presenting the facts he wants, providing one side of an issue, without the slighest concern for objectivity.

Propaganda is basically a buy what I am selling proposition. You are more than willing to buy what he is selling. I am willing to buy that the administration has done egrigious harm. But I am not willing to buy it from Michal Moore, the source is tainted. Tainted by an admittedly personal grudge and his penchant for playing fast & loose with the facts. Tainted by his admission of leaving out pertinent facts and his tacit admission that sources were mislead in the obtaining of his interviews. Tainted by his political agenda overruling any sense of journalistic or historical integrity.

Enjoy the movie.

-Colly

 

[Clare Quilty]

Thank you for reading. And, presumably, for voting seeing as both of my submissions have received a 1 in the last 12 hours. It's good to have a dedicated fan.

You assured me that I was the newest addition to your ignore list. Henceforth let us pretend not to notice each other and not clutter this thread with trivialities wholly unrelated to Fahenheit 9/11 and the fascist stooges who oppose its release.

 

[Clare Quilty]

Excuse me, there's only ONE sarcastic bitch on the AH and that's me.

Faux lesbian internet love? Get real, you pretentious drag queen.

Oh yes, I was way out of line in suggesting that there is a clique of straight (apparently high school) girls who think it's cool to affect a lesbian persona on Lit. That isn't to say that dyed in the wool, On-Our-Backs-reading, Doc-Martin's-wearing dykes don't abound as well. The latter, I would assume, would be more annoyed with the former than me.

As to my being a "pretentious drag queen," one would think that in a forum such as this, the character Clare Quilty would be instantly recognized as male. I suppose that I assumed too much. I knew I should have called myself Evelyn Waugh.

 

[Clare Quilty]

Excuse me, there's only ONE sarcastic bitch on the AH and that's me.

Faux lesbian internet love? Get real, you pretentious drag queen.

Oh yes, I was way out of line in suggesting that there is a clique of straight (apparently high school) girls who think it's cool to affect a lesbian persona on Lit. That isn't to say that dyed in the wool, On-Our-Backs-reading, Doc-Martin's-wearing dykes don't abound as well. The latter, I would assume, would be more annoyed with the former than me. As for internet crushes, regardless of sexual orientation, that's just pathetisad Ms. Sarcastibitch.

As to my being a "pretentious drag queen," one would think that in a forum such as this, the character Clare Quilty would be instantly recognized as male. I suppose that I assumed too much. I knew I should have called myself Evelyn Waugh.

 

[Guest]

Comic relief?

Well, I need to say that I've learned more from Colly (once again) from the last two pages or so. It doesn't matter that we're disparate in political thought, but I appreciate gleaning new ideas from her, not to mention truths.

Not that it matters to anyone or Moore, but I 'get' how he's making with the propaganda. Of course it doesn't matter to me cos I'm anti-Bush. What matters to me is passion and beauty (even the ugly kind). I'd rather have a discussion, if it's possible, on the grey area between propaganda and art. E.g., what does one make of "JFK" or "Nixon" (not that I'm an O. Stone fan).

Um, I think I'm rambling. Full stop.

Clare and Charlus: let's start a thread on Pasolini and Waugh, now there's a seemingly disparate pair.

Perdita

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Comic relief?

Well, I need to say that I've learned more from Colly (once again) from the last two pages or so. It doesn't matter that we're disparate in political thought, but I appreciate gleaning new ideas from her, not to mention truths.

Not that it matters to anyone or Moore, but I 'get' how he's making with the propaganda. Of course it doesn't matter to me cos I'm anti-Bush. What matters to me is passion and beauty (even the ugly kind). I'd rather have a discussion, if it's possible, on the grey area between propaganda and art. E.g., what does one make of "JFK" or "Nixon" (not that I'm an O. Stone fan).

Um, I think I'm rambling. Full stop.

Clare and Charlus: let's start a thread on Pasolini and Waugh, now there's a seemingly disparate pair.

Perdita

I'll have to bow out of that Dita, I haven't seen either one. I am cinimatically challenged.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

//Michal Moore, the source is tainted. Tainted by an admittedly personal grudge ....//

Well, Colly, if that's the standard, then most all the Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton attack of the last few years is tainted.

On your analysis, only angels get to debate anything, for we all, including you, have agendas.

I reiterate a simple question, admitting I don't have lots of evidence: "Did high people in the US gov, and/or FBI give a bunch of Saudi royals and BinLadins a fast exit just after 9/11."

I'm sorry I have no 'angel' to attribute this to, but since it's in the news, and a central claim of Moore's (and the claim that it shows something about US gov/Saudi connections), I thought you might have a stand on it.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

//Michal Moore, the source is tainted. Tainted by an admittedly personal grudge ....//

Well, Colly, if that's the standard, then most all the Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton attack of the last few years is tainted.

On your analysis, only angels get to debate anything, for we all, including you, have agendas.

I reiterate a simple question, admitting I don't have lots of evidence: "Did high people in the US gov, and/or FBI give a bunch of Saudi royals and BinLadins a fast exit just after 9/11."

I'm sorry I have no 'angel' to attribute this to, but since it's in the news, and a central claim of Moore's (and the claim that it shows something about US gov/Saudi connections), I thought you might have a stand on it.

Well, the 9/11 commisson found nothing wrong with it, according to the interviewer. Moore was ready to refute it quickly with a rationalization for not including that fact, which shows he was aware of it. I don't have an opinion on it. It isn't something I have investigated.

I don't take the word of the 9/11 commission as 100% factual, they are working with what documents the administration has given them, similar to the way the Warren Commission was given incomplete documentary information and asked to render a verdict. Nor does the claim of an ex government official really provide evidence in any real sense.

The Bush Family's ties to the Bin Ladins is well established. That it was Ossama's outfit that perpetrated the attacks is also without question. Logic would seem to dictate that you would want to question the relatives of the man who it is assumed masterminded the plot.

On what I know, I would say the preponderance of the evidence points to some form of colusion between the bin Ladin's and someone high up in the government. Preponderance is not proof, yet it does provide a very valid avenue of inquiry.

If you are inquiring. If you already know it's dirty laundry and present only the information that would lead others to believe it's dirty laundry, then you aren't inquiring nor informing.

A question back to you. If you were rendering a documentary, and your central thesis was that there WAS some sort of colusion, would you present all the facts and let the watcher reach their own conclusion? Or would you present only one side?
The only explanation I have for not including contrary evidence is that he is so insecure in his own decision that he can't afford to risk his watchers being unsure either. Or do you have an alternate explanation that dosen't point to the movie being political propaganda?

-Colly

 

[haldir]

What is wrong with being "leftist"?

Your country produced one of the most socialist policies ever in the "New Deal" that ended the Depression. This was an inspiration around the world.

I understand that you find it difficult to perceive that the USA's great multinationals are the source of the problem today, but they're fucking up your lives even more than they're fucking up ours.

Politics has to offer real alternatives. It's not enough to spend months arguing about the validity of your presidential election. What Moore does better than anyone else is point out the slavish chase for votes via opinion polls that homogenises politcs until there's no choice at all. At least he offers practical advice about how to change things.

We all need to wake up and get involved - no use carping from the sidelines - and maybe the world will end up a better place.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Oh yes, I was way out of line in suggesting that there is a clique of straight (apparently high school) girls who think it's cool to affect a lesbian persona on Lit. That isn't to say that dyed in the wool, On-Our-Backs-reading, Doc-Martin's-wearing dykes don't abound as well. The latter, I would assume, would be more annoyed with the former than me. As for internet crushes, regardless of sexual orientation, that's just pathetisad Ms. Sarcastibitch.

As to my being a "pretentious drag queen," one would think that in a forum such as this, the character Clare Quilty would be instantly recognized as male. I suppose that I assumed too much. I knew I should have called myself Evelyn Waugh.

Oh don't get your panties in a bunch. Have some fun damnit. Oh and thanks for the high school girl compliment, damn, if only.

Pathetisad.......LOL.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Michael Moore, a lefty?

Not letf enough, I say!

 

[Clare Quilty]

Oh don't get your panties in a bunch. Have some fun damnit. Oh and thanks for the high school girl compliment, damn, if only.

Pathetisad.......LOL.

I cerrtainly wasn't talking about you when I referenced the giggling cliquish straight "high school girls." I actually have read some of your posts.

Clare's going Commando today--no panties.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

One of the things Michael Moore is about, is protecting workers from the machinations of large corporations, near-criminal laws, and lawmakers who are in those corporation's employ.

Bush appears to think that the common worker should labor through long overtime hours with nothing more than their normal, minimal paycheck, while the corporation’s CEO uses these saving to have platinum linings sewn into his golden parachute.

So, go ahead and call Moore a lefty, a pinko, even a communist. If he is — ME TOO!

In this particular instance, the stakes are higher than the difference between a living and a staving wage, or unsafe working conditions.

In the case of Fahrenheit 9/11 Moore is documenting some of the factors leading to the life and death of American service men. By the way, they are also one of the more underpaid groups of workers in America.