Saw Fahrenheit 9/11 Today

Then you need to see the film and then tell us what is incorrect. It's primarily just public domain news footage. Moore has a large team of fact-checkers verifying the facts. No one has successfully challenged the accuracy of this movie yet.
[/quote]

After reading all the entries: I think there is truth in here, but you will not really find it from the FAR left or right... start looking near the middle.

And I heard on the radio today that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will not let Moore's film be nominated due in their words " for the inaccuracies and false statements"

Do to creative post production the director and film editor can make just about any statement say anything... I would like to see each interview "uncut" and in full... Not what Moore wants us to see.


I think I have had enough.. back to reading about my favorite car..

The "real" truth is out there but due the pollical climate we have today I fear it will never see the light of day.

Of course take the above and my distorted view of things with sugar.. (most things taste better with enough sugar) have a nice day

 

Propaganda...

 

That video only showed one side of his body; While the right side of his body (the side the camera could see) sat there like an idiot, the left side of his body (the part you didn't see) got off its nice person and took action. The above statement just sounds like slanted left-wing claptrap!

 

I have a quick question for those who have seen this movie. I had heard that it is quite graphic, showing beheadings, etc... but that was before anyone had actually seen it. Now that it is out, how graphic is it? I would like to see it, but images like that will remain with me for a long time and I want to be prepared.

For the record, I know it is completely biased. If this movie tilts the balance to get Bush out of office I'm all for it. Somebody posted earlier that it takes generations of presidents to get us where we are now, and to a point I agree. However, to go from a national surplus to national debt in three years is amazing. I personally think he is an idiot and has to go. Someone once accused me of not having respect for the Office of the President. I have every respect for the position, absolutely none for the man. I had almost moved to Australia for personal reasons a few years ago. Moving for political reasons is not out of the question. As much as I love this country and what it can be... I am ashamed of what it has become. When I talk to frends from overseas, they can't understand why the people of this country listen to Bush. One friend from Germany compared Bush to Hitler and said the spin Bush puts on current events smells an awful lot like Nazi propaganda. This isn't his isolated opinion, it's the opinion of those who lived through Hitler and their children.

 

Here we go again. Now we're listening to Germans.

 

I find all this talk about bias and lies quite interesting. I was a journalism major in college, and one of the most fundamental things I was taught was to keep everything straight-- no slant, no spin, and to keep everything completely honest. To do any less and pass it off as news would be an unforgivable sin.

Having said that... a "docudrama", which is the best word I can find to describe Moore's most recent work... is not "news", but it seems that 65% of the population is treating it as such. Moore is no more a journalist than I am a neurosurgeon, he is an entertainer.

Has anyone considered what Moore's specialty is (left-winging infotainment)? Of course it's going to be biased! Find me one person out there who is completely neutral; journalist, filmmaker, candlestick maker. It's not going to happen. And of course he's going to twist facts and cleverly edit interviews. That's how you shock people, that's how you make "news". I'll even show you how it's done. My apologies to you Evan--

Now, if I had the kind of time Moore has, I could "selectively edit" Evan's statement there to say:

Now, even though Evan never admitted to killing Nicole Brown, I just made it sound like he did. That's Moore's craft; that's how he gets his following and makes his millions. And best of all, it's not libellous because he did type those letters, in that order, and I added the elipses to prove that there were other words and ideas there. If you're clever enough, you can get anyone to say anything. You just have to have a long enough interview to condense into five minutes of what you consider "gold".

Compared to who he interviews, Moore is a brilliant man. What makes him even more brilliant is that he knows not to publicise the incidents that make him look like a fool.

Anyone who went into the film expecting a shocking expose of the truth should learn not to look for the truth in a movie theater, on television, or even in a newspaper.

 

I'm afraid there are perhaps six images that are disturbing although I must say that that sort of thing I usually find difficult but I did OK with them.

There is a beheading but it's seen from quite far away.
There's a shot of the bodies hanging in Fallujah.
There is a cart of corpses of Iraqi civilians.
There are some shots of wounds.
There is some footage of humilation in Abu Graib, although it's not the worst that it could have been.

 

Where did you hear that? I don't believe that that's true. I work in Hollywood and have heard nothing about it. I News-Googled it also and found nothing.

 

I think comparing Bush to Hitler is uncalled for and outrageous . For one thing, Hitler was elected fair and square.

-It was far enough away that I couldn't really make out the head coming away from the body.
-Yeah, the burning bodies was pretty graphic. I seriously thought they were burning cardboard effigies at first.
-Also pretty disgusting
-Not quite as graphic as what you'd see in Band of Brothers or Blackhawk Down, but then, these were real
-This actually wasn't Abu Graib, though you'd THINK that it was since it was the same electrodes-to-genitals, black-bag-over-head stuff. This was actually footage that was shot in December 2003!

One of Moore's points in this movie is that the media has completely failed in its job to uncover and report the truth. He argues that if he, a guy who didn't even complete HIGH SCHOOL, could get this footage that was shot way back in December, how come it took the media another 4 months to uncover this scandal and show it on 60 Minutes II???



As for eg239's point about selective editting: yes, I'd definitely like to see the full interviews too. But there's only so much "context" you can have, and its difficult to imagine any such context making some of these statements reasonable. Anyway, I don't think the movie's most powerful moments are these interviews and quotes by government officials. Its the mother's reading of her son's last letter home, and that most certainly wasn't editted (she read it beginning to end, one shot). And its the tribute to US soldiers, given by Moore himself, in his own words (or maybe the producer editted THAT one together).

Trying to debate the merits of this movie without seeing it is, quite frankly, insane. Its, quite literally, like trying to keep up with a discussion in English class having skimmed the Cliff's Notes. You can certainly DO IT, and sound reasonably intelligent, but its definitely not a good idea.

 

While I usually equate the USA Today with a high school newspaper that has pretty pictures, I thought this was an interesting article:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2...-lipscomb_x.htm

If Bush is the "lead actor" in the movie, Lila Lipscomb would have to be the female lead.

 

It was Monday Morning.. either on 590KLBJ news talk or on the way to work XMRadio Fox News Ch. But I did here a short statement about it.. I could see it... the MPAA and Hollywood have a lot of new laws they want passed and upsetting one side of congress will not be very helpful. They would love to get the "Fair Use" overturned... they would love to make it required that your VCR/DVR/PVR work with there new set of "flags" they want in the HDTV transmission stream and keep you from being to skip/fast forward/make archive copies as they see fit.....

I really try not to spread FUD/miss-statements and if I did not hear it, I would have not reported it. Maybe the report was wrong. but I have not seen/heard any retractions..

It might have been a report by Mr. Evans that KLBJ (0620 mon-fri) contracts with that has an ear into Hollywood, and was even at one time was voting member of the Oscars.

Have a nice day..

 

Actually, there was one edit near the end of the mother's reading the note from her son. I do agree though that the "out of context" argument is pretty well worn; I'm surprised at how so many of the detractors of the film see fit to criticize it for taking things out of context when they themselves are only speaking after having seen snippets of the film and having heard things third-person. I didn't have a problem with the way the clips were portrayed, since I remember having seen most all of them in context when they first appeared on the news. I saw the clips as merely a highlight reel of the all-time stupid statements and lies I already knew about. Trust me, in context they sounded just as stupid. Actually, Moore gave MORE context to some of the clips, like when he showed Bush smirking and trying to gain composure in the moments before he announced the attack in Iraq.

 

Agree with Paulisme. I saw the movie last night and have to admit to actually being a bit of disappointed!?!. I felt there was little that I was not already aware of and had already known about. The film's primary merit was to bring many things together in one place as well as put a human face on it; whether it be Lila Lipscomb or the grieving older Iraqi lady. Several personal thoughts that I have had over the last year and a half. It started with vehement disagreement with going to war with Iraq in the first place ( I did think that Afghanistan was different) The line from the original Shrek movie that I've been quoting recently, having been reminded of it myself, is when early in the movie the Duke sends his troops of to vanquish Shrek. "Some of YOU may die, But it is a sacrifice that I am willing to make!"

Having said that, I will also say that having made such a mess of things, we are obliged to help rebuild their country. That does not however mean remaking Iraq in our own image! Military troops yes or no, I don't really know though I think that some are required and I fully support their presence. What I disagree with is the initial premis for invasion of a sovereign nation. Any support that I ever remember hearing about between Iraq and Al Quida was with the Kurds in the north whom Sadam was oppressing, and who we were supporting with the Northern No-Fly Zone. Publicly, Ossama bin Ladin's proclaimations about Hussein ran the same tenor as those thrown at us. There was minute coverage of this before commencment of military action. Does anyone appreciate the recent verbal backpeddling being done about the Al Quida connection?

Having started to ramble, and not really having the time to spare, I am going to stop this entry now. When really started, I can go on for hours (pages) about this. Any votes for going back to something simple like "Gay Marriage"?

 

Yeah, I went to that same theater and it was packed when I went as well. Very diverse crowd, too.

 

I must say all the nonsense I see going on here is beginning to concern me. "Hate Bush. Country's rotten. Bush is a liar. Moore is wonderful. Leaving the country. Blah Blah Blah." The one thing that comforts me is the knowledge that we're all going to get over it eventually. ......Just like we got over, hula hoops, paddle boards and pet rocks.

 

The one "Truth" that no one can deny is that America is truly polarized on the topic of the Bush Presidency with very few fence sitters and no middle of the road consensus.