Author Topic: Fahrenheit 9/11  (Read 1782 times)

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19722
Fahrenheit 9/11
« on: May 17, 2004, 08:44:00 pm »
'Fahrenheit 9/11' ignites Cannes audiences
 Moore hopes his new film prompts viewers to be 'good citizens'
 Updated: 3:08 p.m. ET May  17, 2004
 
 CANNES, France - As promised, Michael Moore lit a powder keg Monday at the Cannes Film Festival: His incendiary ??Fahrenheit 9/11? riled and disturbed audiences with a relentless critique of the Bush administration in the post-Sept. 11 world.
 
 If Moore can get the movie into U.S. theaters this summer as planned, the title ??Fahrenheit 9/11? could become a rallying cry in the fall election for voters hoping to see Democratic challenger John Kerry defeat President Bush.
 
 ??Will it influence the election? I hope it just influences people to leave the theater and become good citizens,? Moore said at a news conference Monday. ??I??ll leave it to others to decide what kind of impact it??s going to have on the election.?
 
 The movie reiterates other critics?? accusations about the Bush family??s financial connections to Saudi oil interests and the family of Osama bin Laden. Moore charges that the White House was asleep at the wheel before the Sept. 11 attacks, then used fear-mongering of future terrorism to muster support for the Iraq war.
 
 Yet Moore ?? the provocateur behind the Academy Award-winning ??Bowling for Columbine,? which dissected American gun culture ?? packages his anti-Bush message in a way that provokes both laughs and gasps.
 
 Moore is less this time
 After making himself the lead figure in his previous documentaries, Moore spends far less time on screen here.  
 
 ??The material didn??t need the help. It was strong enough already. And I feel that a little bit of me probably goes a long way,? Moore said. ??But the film I feel is clearly in my voice. My voice, my vision, and the way I see things. My sense of humor.?
 
 Interviews, mocking footage of Bush??s often inelegant speeches, and comments by U.S. soldiers in Iraq ?? many expressing harsh disillusionment in their leaders ?? dominate the film.
 
 It opens with a whimsical recap of the 2000 presidential campaign and the rancor after Florida??s photo-finish vote threw the election to Bush over Democratic rival Al Gore.
 
 ??Was it all just a dream?? Moore ponders. ??Did the last four years even happen??
 
 The Sept. 11 attacks play out with no images of the planes that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Instead, Moore fades to black and provides only the sounds of the planes crashing into the towers, before fading in again on tearful faces of people watching the devastation and a slow-motion montage of floating ash and debris after the buildings collapsed.
 
 Moore examines Saudi financial ties to the Bush family and presents post-Saddam Iraq as an economic-development zone for American corporations.
 
 Graver in tone than ??Bowling for Columbine,? the film includes grisly images of dead Iraqi babies and burned children, along with amputees and other U.S. soldiers injured in Iraq.
 
 Accolades from skeptics
 Even those skeptical of Moore, who has drawn criticism that he skews the truth to fit his arguments, were impressed.
 
 ??I have a problematic relationship with some of Michael Moore??s work,? said James Rocchi, film critic for DVD rental company Netflix, saying he found Moore too smug and stunt-driven in the past. ??There??s no such job as a standup journalist.?
 
 Yet in ??Fahrenheit 9/11,? Moore presents powerful segments about losses on both sides of the Iraq war and the grief of American and Iraqi families, Rocchi said.
 
 ??This film is at its best when it is most direct and speaks from the heart, when it shows lives torn apart,? Rocchi said.
 
 Moore still is arranging for a U.S. distributor. Miramax financed the movie, but parent company Disney blocked the release because of its political overtones.
 
 In the days before Cannes, Moore??s Disney criticism whipped festival audiences into a fever for ??Fahrenheit 9/11.? Hollywood cynics called it Moore??s usual showmanship, but when the movie finally unspooled, it earned resounding applause at Monday??s press screenings.
 
 ??You see so many movies after they??ve been hyped to heaven and they turn out to be complete crap, but this is a powerful film,? said Baz Bamigboye, a film columnist for London??s Daily Mail. ??It would be a shame if Americans didn??t get to see this movie about important stuff happening in their own backyard.?
 
 Likely July 4th release date
 ??Fahrenheit 9/11? seems assured of U.S. release, however. Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein are buying back the film from Disney and finding another distributor, with Moore hoping to have it in theaters by Fourth of July weekend.
 
 Harvey Weinstein showed up outside the Cannes theater after the first ??Fahrenheit 9/11? screening. He declined to speak at length, but as reporters asked if the film would be released, he said, ??Have I ever let you down??
 
 The film takes its title from Ray Bradbury??s ??Fahrenheit 451,? which refers to the temperature needed to burn books in an anti-Utopian society. Moore calls ??Fahrenheit 9/11? the ??temperature at which freedom burns.?
 
 In the film, Moore revisits his hometown of Flint, Michigan, whose economic distress after General Motors plant closings was the subject of his first documentary, ??Roger & Me.?
 
 Moore talks with resident Lila Lipscomb during her daily routine, hanging an American flag in front of her house. He returns later as Lipscomb heart-wrenchingly reads the final letter from her son, Michael Pedersen, killed in action in Iraq.
 
 As her patriotism turns to bitterness against the federal government, Lipscomb journeys to Washington, D.C. Near the end of ??Fahrenheit 9/11,? Lipscomb stares at the White House and says, ??I finally have a place to put all my pain and anger.?
 
 For all his Bush criticism, Moore said he would he would like to visit the White House himself.
 
 ??I would love to have a White House screening of this film,? Moore said. ??I would attend it. I would behave myself.?
27>34

  • Guest
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2004, 08:22:00 am »
Half the movie is about Iraq - we were able to get film crews embedded with American troops without them knowing that it was Michael Moore.
 
 (Aside from the US)The film currently has distribution in every other country except Taiwan.

godsshoeshine

  • Member
  • Posts: 4826
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2004, 12:43:00 pm »
i've heard mixed things. they say there is nothing new in the movie, which is the biggest critizism. the interviews with soldiers and the mistreatment of iraqis is supposed to be pretty effecting, though
o/\o

Bags

  • Member
  • Posts: 8545
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2004, 01:28:00 pm »
This is the commentary referred to in the Guardian article.  It's interesting to read all the perspectives...why this issue has become so fascinating, I'm not sure, but it has to me...
 
 COMMENTARY
 If It's Moore, It's Less Than Honest
 By Kay Hymowitz
 
 May 11, 2004
 
 Last week, Michael Moore announced that Disney had refused to distribute his new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." As with all of Moore's pronouncements, you might want to season this one liberally with salt.
 
 Moore ?? who poses as a heroic truth-teller and who in a speech last year after winning an Oscar for his documentary "Bowling for Columbine" bemoaned these "fictitious times" ?? is a virtuoso of fictions himself.
 
 As the filmmaker's fictions go, this one was fairly modest; Moore appears to have timed his announcement to stir up publicity for his movie's upcoming screening at the Cannes Film Festival, though he has known for a year that Disney Chief Executive Michael Eisner was refusing to distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11." Still, the complaint was vintage Moore: People who disagree with you are part of a conspiracy led by corporate evildoers. When a film magazine panned his breakout film "Roger and Me," Moore dangled this explanation: "Film Comment is a publication of the Film Society of Lincoln Center. Lincoln Center had received a $5-million gift from GM just prior to publishing the piece trashing 'Roger and Me.' Coincidence? Or just five big ones well spent?"
 
 After some people booed his Oscar acceptance speech last year, Moore insisted in an interview with the San Jose Mercury News that "those boos were amplified ? as I looked out at the audience no one was booing. You could see the camera desperately trying to find people who were disagreeing with me and they couldn't." Actually, those boos were more real than "Bowling for Columbine," which from title to credits was a torrent of partial truths, pointed omissions and deliberate misimpressions.
 
 Moore based the title on the testimony of a few students that the killers had gone to a bowling class before the massacre ?? even though investigators concluded on the testimony of many other witnesses that they could not have been in class that day.
 
 The dazzling opening sequence, in which Moore runs out of a bank waving a gun that he received in exchange for opening an account, is no less factually challenged. According to later interviews with the bank service representative shown in the sequence, Moore staged the scene, knowing that it takes six weeks to do a background check before a customer can receive a gun.
 
 And that's only the first few minutes of the movie. Later, Moore implicitly condemns the United States for giving $345 million to the Taliban in 2000 and 2001, neglecting to mention that the money went through a food program run by the United Nations for a famine-ravaged population.
 
 Moore's admirers justify his dysfunctional relationship with facts by insisting that the filmmaker still manages to get at core truths, but "Bowling" is a perfect example of how slippery facts skid toward incoherent conclusions.
 
 Moore tries to show the connection between individual and state violence by pointing out that the Columbine murders occurred on the same day that the United States dropped the largest number of bombs in the conflict in Yugoslavia. But if trying to depose a tyrant like Milosevic in a NATO operation is somehow related to kids committing mass murder, then why were there so few murders that year in Britain, where the government strongly supported the bombings?
 
 He also tries to argue that the media feed people's fear, which in turn leads to violence. But if the U.S. is so violent, shouldn't the media cover it?
 
 Moore justifies his fictions by pleading comic license: "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?" he once asked Lou Dobbs.
 
 When "Fahrenheit 9/11" does finally open, you may be able to call it funny. Just don't assume that it is true ?? or, for that matter, a documentary.
 -----------------------------------------
 Kay Hymowitz is a contributing editor of the City Journal at the Manhattan Institute.
 
 Letter to the editor on this column:
 
 Moore and President Bush. Both heroes to their parties. Both embellish, distort and omit facts to make the case for their agenda. Both believe that those who oppose that agenda are conspiring with "evildoers." One makes movies. One makes war. Guess which one [L.A. Times Commentary author] Hymowitz takes issue with.
 
 Gregory Dodds
 
 Los Angeles

  • Guest
Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2004, 01:38:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Bagalicious Tangster:
  This is the commentary referred to in the [...]article.  
That commentary sounds more like it was written by Sean Hannity.  
 
 Kay Hymowitz hasn't fact-checked the annotations of the first chapter of Dude Where's My Country?.  She wouldn't know a fact if it bit her in her ignorant ass.