Preview of whats to come in 'Farenheit 911'

[edotherocket 0]

Less is Moore in subdued, effective '9/11'

 

May 18, 2004

 

BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC Advertisement

 

 

 

 

 

 

CANNES, France -- Michael Moore the muckraking wiseass has been replaced by a more subdued version in "Fahrenheit 9/11," his new documentary questioning the anti-terrorism credentials of the Bush regime. In the Moore version, President Bush, his father and members of their circle have received $1.5 billion from Saudi Arabia over the years, attacked Iraq to draw attention from their Saudi friends, and have lost the hearts and minds of many of the U.S. servicemen in the war.

 

The film premiered Monday at the Cannes Film Festival to a series of near-riot scenes, as overbooked screenings were besieged by mobs trying to push their way in. The response at the early morning screening I attended was loudly enthusiastic. And at the official black-tie screening, it was greeted by a standing ovation; a friend who was there said it went on "for at least 25 minutes," which probably means closer to 15 (estimates of ovations at Cannes are like estimates of parade crowds in Chicago).

 

But the film doesn't go for satirical humor the way Moore's "Roger & Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" did. Moore's narration is still often sarcastic, but frequently he lets his footage speak for itself.

 

The film shows American soldiers not in a prison but in the field, hooding an Iraqi, calling him Ali Baba, touching his genitals and posing for photos with him. There are other scenes of U.S. casualties without arms or legs, questioning the purpose of the Iraqi invasion at a time when Bush proposed to cut military salaries and benefits. It shows Lila Lipscomb, a mother from Flint, Mich., reading a letter from her son, who urged his family to help defeat Bush, days before he was killed. And in a return to the old Moore confrontational style, it shows him joined by a Marine recruiter as he encourages congressmen to have their sons enlist in the services.

 

Despite these dramatic moments, the most memorable footage for me involved President Bush on Sept. 11. The official story is that Bush was meeting with a group of pre-schoolers when he was informed of the attack on the World Trade Center and quickly left the room. Not quite right, says Moore. Bush learned of the first attack before entering the school, "decided to go ahead with his photo op," and began to read My Pet Goat to the students. Informed of the second attack, he incredibly remained with the students for another seven minutes, reading from the book, until a staff member suggested that he leave. The look on his face as he reads the book, knowing what he knows, is disquieting.

 

"Fahrenheit 9/11" documents the long association of the Bush clan and Saudi oil billionaires, and reveals that when Bush released his military records, he blotted out the name of another pilot whose flight status was suspended on the same day for failure to take a physical exam. This was his good friend James R. Bath, who later became the Texas money manager for the bin Laden family (which has renounced its terrorist son).

 

When a group of 9/11 victims sued the Saudi government for financing the terrorists, the Saudis hired as their defense team the law firm of James Baker, Bush Sr.'s secretary of state. And the film questions why, when all aircraft were grounded after 9/11, the White House allowed several planes to fly around the country picking up bin Laden family members and other Saudis and flying them home.

 

Much of the material in "Fahrenheit 9/11" has already been covered in books and newspapers, but some is new, and it all benefits from the different kind of impact a movie has. Near the beginning of the film, as Congress moves to ratify the election of Bush after the Florida and Supreme Court controversies, it is positively eerie to see 10 members of Congress -- eight black women, one Asian woman and one black man -- rise to protest the move and be gaveled into silence by the chairman of the session, Al Gore.

 

On the night before his film premiered, Moore, in uncharacteristic formalwear, attended an official dinner given by Gilles Jacob, president of the festival. Conversation at his table centered on the just-published New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh alleging that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld personally authorized use of torture in Iraqi prisons.

 

Moore had his own insight into the issue: "Rumsfeld was under oath when he testified about the torture scandal. If he lied, that's perjury. And therefore I find it incredibly significant that when Bush and Cheney testified before the 9/11 commission, they refused to swear an oath. They claimed they'd sworn an oath of office, but that has no legal standing. Do you suppose they remembered how Clinton was trapped by perjury and were protecting themselves?"

 

Would something like that belong in the film?

 

"My contract says I can keep editing and adding stuff right up until the release date," Moore said. He said he expects to sign a U.S. distribution deal this week at Cannes; the film's producer, Miramax, was forbidden to release it by its parent company, Disney.

 

After the first press screening on Monday, journalists noted on their way out that Moore was more serious in this film and took fewer cheap shots. But there are a few. Wait until you see Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz preparing for a TV interview. First he puts a pocket comb in his mouth to wet it and combs down his hair. Still not satisfied, he spits on his hand and wipes the hair into place. Catching politicians being made up for TV is an old game, but this is a first.

 

 

 

 

Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.

 

Source:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/...nnes18.html

 

Does this film have any release date outside of America yet?

 

Regardless of your political slant and views I'm sure this will be a pretty hot topic once its out (if I know Moore it will probably be *just* before November).

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

So Ebert likes Mikey? I'm shocked...

[Guest thebigjig]

So Ebert likes Mikey? I'm shocked...

Most mainstream movie critics do... you know, those that regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal, can appreciate a film from an artistic standpoint even if they dont agree with the subject matter

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

How did you come across this info regarding the love Mikey gets with "most" "mainstream" movie critics?...

[Guest thebigjig]

How did you come across this info regarding the love Mikey gets with "most" "mainstream" movie critics?...

Go to Rottentomatos.com and do a search of reviews for his films

[Guest Cerebus]

Well have fun jerking off in self-satisfaction when Moore tells you what you want to hear. You have my IM Big Jig, you want to read about what things are really like in the Middle East you know how to find me.

[Guest thebigjig]

Well have fun jerking off in self-satisfaction when Moore tells you what you want to hear. You have my IM Big Jig, you want to read about what things are really like in the Middle East you know how to find me.

Yes... because you've been there, have lived there, live it every day and understand what its like more than any of the critics... I see

 

I dont eat everything Moore feeds me with a spoon... I respect him as a filmmaker... I dont agree with everything he says, but I am very interested in seeing his new film, and I'm even more interested in reading counter arguments to it, just as I did with Bowling for Columbine... the fact of the matter is, things aren't peachy over there and there were mistakes made and there are mistakes being made... and there are ties between the Bush family and the Saudis... Moore may go so far as to distort things and spin truths, but that doesnt mean all of it is phony

 

What I would love to see, is you and Mike, and some of the other conservatives on this board, actually go and watch this film... take a notepad with you, and deconstruct the film factually... call it a challenge, but I think it would be fairly interesting and could liven up this tired debate here... I want to see an actual fact breakdown on what Moore says instead of the usual "Moore sucks because hes fat" or "all of it is propoganda"

 

instead, I want to know WHY and WHAT is propoganda and how what he says has been spun every which way

 

I suspect you two will refuse though, but hey its an interesting challenge none the less

[Damaramu 0]

Yeah it'd be nice if I heard more criticism of Moore than "He's a fat tub of lard! LOLZ2k4~!~!~"

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Kiss my ass, Damaramu.

 

I never use the "lol2004" when talking about Mikey...

[Damaramu 0]

Kiss my ass, Damaramu.

 

I never use the "lol2004" when talking about Mikey...

I know you don't say "lol2004".........................you say "LOLZ2k4!~!~!~!&$)*$&!~~~!"

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Actually, I do not, so you're 0-2, my OK hoss.

 

You don't need to know what year it is when making a Mikey Moore fat joke...

[Guest wrestlingbs]

What Moore proposes in the film, if true, is disturbing. But I wouldn't just take Moore's word for it. He's had a histrory of being extremely biased in his presentation, and while I loved BFC as a film, I have to admit the guy comes off like a jerk.

 

I don't need Moore to give me a reason to dislike Bush. Bush has given me enough reasons just by what he has openly said and did.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Farenheit 9/11 Wins top prize at Cannes Film Festival

 

First documentary to win it since 1956. Gee, I wonder why?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Please, documentary is the wrong word to use for this. You have to actually, you know, use facts to be considered a documentary.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Farenheit 9/11 Wins top prize at Cannes Film Festival

 

First documentary to win it since 1956. Gee, I wonder why?

Nuts. I had my money on that film starring two gay cowboys eating pudding...

[Mik 0]

To be fair, some good movies have won the Palm D'orr, most notably Pulp Fiction. It doesn't have to be a super artsy movie.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

After the first press screening on Monday, journalists noted on their way out that Moore was more serious in this film and took fewer cheap shots. But there are a few. Wait until you see Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz preparing for a TV interview. First he puts a pocket comb in his mouth to wet it and combs down his hair. Still not satisfied, he spits on his hand and wipes the hair into place. Catching politicians being made up for TV is an old game, but this is a first.

 

Regardless of the quality of the rest of the movie, I would love to see this, it sounds hilarious. Wolfowitz is such a vapid twit.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Just something I just found out, this movie just won the Palme De Or at the Cannes Film Festival. So this movie is going to have a lot of hype for it, regardless if Disney drops it or not.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Please, documentary is the wrong word to use for this. You have to actually, you know, use facts to be considered a documentary.

OMG I like totally disagre wit wat Mkey's saying (he's sooooo fat!!11) der cant b truth in wat he sayz? Drudgey says so, and dey so reliablez! dids I Mention Mikey's fat?!1

[Guest wrestlingbs]

Off topic, but did anyone else see VH1 Illustrated w/ Micheal Moore and The Gollum/Smeagol show on FOX news? "Fat Liberals!! BAHHHHH!"

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

No but I was watching that horrid 50 Worst Songs EVER show and wow was it terribly unfunny.

 

And boy does Vh1 hate Toby Keith.

 

(What is Vh1 doing with Mikey Moore? Didn't know Far. 9/11 had a soundtrack worth pimping...)

[Guest MikeSC]

What I would love to see, is you and Mike, and some of the other conservatives on this board, actually go and watch this film... take a notepad with you, and deconstruct the film factually... call it a challenge, but I think it would be fairly interesting and could liven up this tired debate here... I want to see an actual fact breakdown on what Moore says instead of the usual "Moore sucks because hes fat" or "all of it is propoganda"

Done to death with BFC --- people who lap up his crap don't care.

 

And, how 'bout this --- explain how THIS movie got Michael Moore a FIFTEEN MINUTE STANDING OVATION. There is NO movie in history that deserves THAT reaction.

 

This was a VIRULENTLY anti-Bush group there (Ebert is quite a leftie, mind you --- when mentioning Stern's problems with the FCC, he said Rush deserves punishment --- ignoring that RUSH OPPOSED THE FCC'S ACTIONS AS WELL). This gave me a creepy, Nazi torchlight parade vibe.

 

Heck, you could have Jesus Christ, George Washington, and Gen. De Gaulle all rise from the dead and sing songs and the French wouldn't give it a FIFTEEN MINUTE STANDING OVATION.

I dont eat everything Moore feeds me with a spoon... I respect him as a filmmaker... I dont agree with everything he says, but I am very interested in seeing his new film, and I'm even more interested in reading counter arguments to it, just as I did with Bowling for Columbine... the fact of the matter is, things aren't peachy over there and there were mistakes made and there are mistakes being made... and there are ties between the Bush family and the Saudis... Moore may go so far as to distort things and spin truths, but that doesnt mean all of it is phony

If it's a "documentary" --- then it shouldn't "distort things and spin truths". This is just a modern version of "Triumph of the Will". Moore is a modern-day Leni Reifenstahl.

instead, I want to know WHY and WHAT is propoganda and how what he says has been spun every which way

Well, in BFC, it was because he spliced several Heston speeches into one and claiming it took place on a different date. It was making claims about getting guns from a bank that was hardly accurate.

 

You know, stuff like that.

 

But, in some circles, lies are peachy --- as long as they "stimulate discussion".

 

The man PLAGARIZES stuff regularly. Heck, FAHRENHEIT 911 IS A BLATANT COPY OF ANOTHER FILM:

MICHAEL Moore's anti-Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11" isn't even original. Two years ago, "9/11: The Road to Tyranny," a real documentary by Alex Jones, had most of the "facts" Moore uses in his scatter-shot diatribe. Jones, who is less interested in making money than the self-aggrandizing Moore, released his film for free on his Web site www.infowars.com, where it drew legions of new fans, including producer Curt Johnson, who is hiring Jones as a consultant on a political action thriller titled "Wake Up."

 

What's my source? Heck, go to www.infowars.com (QUITE the lefty site, mind you) and check it out yourself.

 

I won't even MENTION how much "Stupid White Men" rips off an internet site.

 

But, hey, he "spurs dialogue" --- so I guess it's OK.

I suspect you two will refuse though, but hey its an interesting challenge none the less

When it hits cable, I'll consider it. I'll do as little as possible to give that cholesterol clog in the artery of life more money.

 

Or I can do a google search and read the crap his bilge is copied from. I always prefer originals to copies.

EDIT: BTW, here's a transcript from Scarborough County, where Christopher Hitchens gives one of the more scathing critiques of Moore I've seen.

SCARBOROUGH:  OK, but this is what he told the foreign newspaper when he was selling his book overseas.

 

Of Americans, he said—quote—“They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet  We don‘t know about anything that‘s happening outside our country.  Our stupidity is embarrassing.‘

 

Jeffrey Lyons, doesn‘t this man appear to be extraordinarily cynical, like Penn said, that he will say whatever he wants to say at the time to sell books, to sell movies, to sell themselves also? 

 

LYONS:  It‘s like judging a ballplayer on how he is in the locker room, rather than how he plays between the lines.  I want to see his movie and make up my own mind.  Jay Leno does “Jay Walking” and he interviews people and asks them to identify Colin Powell, and they don‘t know who that is, but they know what‘s on “Fear Factor.”

 

So I know where he‘s coming from.  I wish he would be a little less shrill off camera when he‘s not making movies.  But the issue here is, does his film have a right to be seen?  And I think it does.  I don‘t know whether the research is going to be right. 

 

LYONS:  All the things he says about his film and about America are open to debate, and I don‘t believe all the things he says.  But I do know that he‘s a talented filmmaker, has an Oscar to prove it.  And if you see his film and don‘t agree with the research, the conclusions that he makes, that‘s up to you.  I don‘t think it‘s...

 

HITCHENS:  You‘re pushing at an open door.  Nobody is saying that he

 

LYONS:  Well, Disney is saying, no, no.

 

HITCHENS:  The danger of living in a world where you can‘t hear from Michael Moore is very slim. 

 

LYONS:  I understand that, but the fact that Disney dumped his film is a little bit disturbing to me. 

 

HITCHENS:  You don‘t have the right to have Disney promote you. 

 

LYONS:  Well, what were they expecting when they signed him?  They weren‘t going to get a movie with Kate Hudson that‘s going to play on airplanes. 

 

HITCHENS:  It‘s a very crass decision taken by some very inelegant people. 

 

LYONS:  Absolutely.

 

HITCHENS:  But speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans.  They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on.  And they‘ve taken as their own, as their representative American someone who actually embodies all of those qualities. 

 

LYONS:  From your perspective.  That‘s also—what we‘re talking about is his talent as a filmmaker.  And I‘m eager to see his work.

 

(CROSSTALK)

 

SCARBOROUGH:  Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller), is he a talented filmmaker, judging by “Bowling For Columbine”? 

 

JILLETTE:  Well, no, I didn‘t think so.

 

One of the hardest things to do is to be in front of a camera out among people and just be funny.  Letterman is the best there ever was at that.  And Michael Moore I don‘t think is not funny enough or good enough to really compete with Letterman.  So he brings in a lot of other things. 

 

The point that he should be judged on his movie is insane.  He‘s the one that pulls it out with that whole thing.  He‘s trying to get this movie as much press as possible without it being seen.  And he‘s been very successful at that.  He could have handled the Disney thing differently.  He wasn‘t trying to hush that up.  He is pulling that out into the public arena, and it‘s OK to judge him on that.  It‘s not like a ballplayer being judged in the locker room. 

 

He‘s doing this really big and he‘s spilling outside of the movie, so it‘s OK for to comment on that, because that‘s part of what he is. 

-=Mike

http://www.cbc.ca/story/arts/national/news...re20040521.html

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Please, documentary is the wrong word to use for this.  You have to actually, you know, use facts to be considered a documentary.

OMG I like totally disagre wit wat Mkey's saying (he's sooooo fat!!11) der cant b truth in wat he sayz? Drudgey says so, and dey so reliablez! dids I Mention Mikey's fat?!1

Wow I guess because you agree with it, it has to be right huh? Since when has he used facts in the past? BFC has been disected to death and proven to be lacking in facts. The Heston "speech" alone shows how Moore will make things up out of thin air.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Upon reading the synopsis of the Alex Jones film, it doesn't sound exactly like Moore's new film. They're both Anti- Bush, but the approaches are different, and the movies are different. OMG THEY COVER THE SAME TOPIC AND BOTH HAVE 911 IN THE NAME THEY MUST BE THE SAME~!

 

You got that information from the site that RELEASED JONES' FILM AND SELLS IT TODAY AT A PRICE! Don't you think that it might be a *tad* biased in its dismissal of Moore's film? Just a *tad*?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wow I guess because you agree with it, it has to be right huh?...

Haven't you learned anything in the short time hunger4unger was with us?

 

You don't need facts to prove a point -- you just have to "feel..."

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I wish the brain cells would die that have the knowledge that Unger exists.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

If the conservatives were right, they wouldn't need fat jokes. They'd just refute his points.

[Lando Griffin 0]

His points have been refuted endlessly.

[Vyce 0]

His points have been refuted endlessly.

But liberals don't care about that.

 

Which was what MikeSC pointed out, if anyone merely took the time to read his post.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Please, documentary is the wrong word to use for this.  You have to actually, you know, use facts to be considered a documentary.

OMG I like totally disagre wit wat Mkey's saying (he's sooooo fat!!11) der cant b truth in wat he sayz? Drudgey says so, and dey so reliablez! dids I Mention Mikey's fat?!1

Wow I guess because you agree with it, it has to be right huh? Since when has he used facts in the past? BFC has been disected to death and proven to be lacking in facts. The Heston "speech" alone shows how Moore will make things up out of thin air.

I DON'T agree with most of what he says though.

 

All I'm saying is that one side can present something as a fact and another can present the opposite as a fact and both will have evidence to support themselves.