Moore's Big Night Out
Last night was the D.C. premiere of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, a movie that has, among other things, caused one-time sworn enemies Howard Stern and the French to line up on the same side of the barricades (metric conversion question: What's Fahrenheit 9/11 in Celsius?).
Here's the Wash Post's account of Moore's Big Night Out.
And here's a slamma-jamma article from an equally reputable source, Newsmax, which previews many of the charges in the forthcoming book Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man, by David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke. A snippet, courtesy of Newsmax:
Moore can't get along even with his fellow travelers.
Hardy and Clarke disclose how the radical magazine Mother Jones fired the "arbitrary" and "suspicious" Moore; how he started his feud with his replacement, David Talbot, who later founded Salon; how Ralph Nader's organization fired Moore; how he attacked Pauline Kael, Harlan Jacobson and other prominent critics who exposed the deceits of his schlockumentaries; how he lost a lawsuit for betraying fellow lefty activist Larry Stecco in "Roger & Me," etc.
Nor can the elitist Moore tolerate those lowly working classes and students he claims to represent.
"Big Fat Stupid White Man" gives details of how he abused the staff during a speaking engagement at London's Roundhouse Theater; how he castigated a student who dared question his hefty speaking fee; how he attacked a young documentary maker who had the nerve to give him a taste of the "Roger & Me" treatment, and so forth.
That sounds like fun reading, though none of it is as damning as the substantive shots fired by critics such as Christopher Hitchens.
Update: Fahrenheit is now spelled correctly.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The lighter side of Michael Moore is hidden beneath his head to toe clothing. The hat and the beard just cover up more of his outer self. When I see him I want to pass him a burqa and say "this is a lot easier guy".
I love Moore like a love Limbaugh. They're big, fat, rich, white guys that love to hear themselves talk. I'm going to go see Moore's movie. I'm not paying with my own money though. I'm going to find someone that thinks everyone should pay 70% of their income to the government and since the government will only really accept about 50% then they'll have plenty left over to pay for my movie ticket.
I think Shazam is using the Leftinator.
joe:
"equally reputable source?"
This was irony.
"substantive shots in the Hitchens article?"
This was not. The argument that Moore is self contradictory and, worse, propagandizes for a guy like Saddam Hussein just to throw as many unfounded accusations as possible into one film is fairly substantive.
To me, the worst part about Moore is how he hides behind entertainment and 'comedy', but tries to play the 'true message' card at the same time. He films a misleading bit (as in the gun giveaway in "Bowling") ostensibly to make a point about how outrageous the current state of affairs is, but when confronted with the observation that he fabricated the evidence, he chides us for not being able to take a joke.
You know, a joke. Like making a senior suffering from dementia look bad on camera with your dazzling wit. Yuk yuk. Ahem.
Yeah, well, how many presidents and other high-up pols are pathologically narcissistic as well? It's probably a psychological prerequisite for the job. Clinton sure was (because of and despite his charm), Bush 43 too. Nixon probably had the closely related Paranoid PD. Probably only Carter wasn't, and we all know he was history's greatest monster. 😉
Jason: Which senior: Dick Clark or Charlton Heston? Don't let Clark's boyish looks fool ya. 🙂
The lefty argument that we all need to see the movie before we pass judgment on it is simply ridiculous. If Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly write a new book, do you withhold judgment on it until you read it? If so, you're clearly wasting your time. Every political party has its shameless partisan propagandists. Michael Moore is one of them. To pretend otherwise in the name of open-mindedness is just a sham.
One would think if Moore had the forces of goodness behind him, he wouldn't need to butcher the truth and twist and rearrange facts like silly putty. Also, if he honestly thinks this will help defeat Bush he's dead wrong. I can't picture anyone who already wouldn't fellatio him at first sight even consider watching this film let alone get thier mind changed by it. Congratulations Moore, you've made yourself into a less attractive, bigger, and male version of Ann Coulter. Bravo.
"Left unsaid by Hitchens is that the common business interests of the two families may influence government policy."
I think Hitchens' point may be that that was left unsaid by Moore. This is a point I harp on a lot, but there's a big difference between influence and control. Now for one reason or another, the Saudis had the influence to get their own flown around during the flight ban and then flown out of the country immediately afterward. The larger question is: so? The part about being able to fly when no one else could strikes me as unfair at a certain level, but since none of these family members had anything to do with OBL for many years if ever, and since the FBI had no interest in interviewing them because of that, it's hardly a big deal. Maybe I'm prejudging, but I think it's a very good bet that Moore makes a big winky-wink shtink about the bin Ladens' ability to fly at that time without providing any of the info that would lead one to not care much. So maybe it's true that the Saudis have some influence with the US government. Is it any more than they have over any other administration, and is there any EFFECT of it beyond a questionable exclusion for the protection of bin Laden family members? A degree of influence is really no big deal in and of itself. If you hint that it's ominous or tantamount to control without there being anything to back that up, then you are doing exactly what Hitchens is accusing Moore of.
Pavel--
Couldn't you say the same things about the "connections" between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens? They question is, were they enough to influence US foreign policy, or are they a big non-story?
I should add that when I ask what effect the Saudis' influence has had beyond the exclusion to the flight ban, I didn't mention for focus's sake that there's plenty of reason to suspect the Saudis may have more influence than they oughtta. But this goes way beyond the Bush Administration and likely way beyond anything Moore is willing or able to tackle.
Jussi H?m?l?inen,
A better analogy - Moore's film could change the way we think of the struggle between the Left and the Bush administration the same way Battlefield Earth changed our view of Scientology.
The right-wing will hate this movie, which is better than Reefer Madness and Triumph of the Will combined!
Here is an interesting line from the movie:
(SPOILERS BELOW)
(SPOILERS)
"Nevertheless, the American state, with its unelected president, venal Supreme Court, silent Congress, gutted Bill of Rights and compliant media is determined by capitalist interests which lead to the predatory imperialist aims outlined by the crypto-fascist Project for a New American Century. It is quite remarkable that Americanism as an ideology belies justifications given by the world's leading apologists for the theocrat Ashcroft's suspension of our civil rights. As Norman Mailer pointed out, the unstated purpose of this war can be regarded as the seizure of the Iraqi Oil Ministry. Clearly, Bush's argument for war provides a pretext for an act of international violence that exceeds even those of the "liberal" Bill Clinton."
You can read more here:
http://www.spinline.net/cy/lefterator.pl
That's right, nitt-pick Michael Moore's film. The Iraq war was wrong and the film says so, but it might not be "accurate" in some details or something. So a movie which has some wrong details is worse than a WAR which is WRONG?? Talk about priorities out of whak.
Seriously Nick, Hitch is every bit the dickhead Moore is. Big Fat Stupid White Man looks like it could have a good giggle to it. You can?t be too vindictive when it comes to MM for my taste, but what I hate most about him is that I largely agree with the F9/11 thesis.
One of the most depressing things about being a libertarian is, you almost never hear a public figure advocating what you believe. The most depressing thing about being a libertarian is, when you do hear your beliefs presented to a large audience, the speaker is inevitably an idiot and/or an asshole.
"Congratulations Moore, you've made yourself into a less attractive, bigger, and male version of Ann Coulter."
Frankly, it's hard to imagine *anything* less attractive than Coulter. I wouldn't boink her with a stolen set of nads.
What's with all the Hitchens-fellating at Reason over the last couple of years? As I understand it, his sole claim to libertarianism/classical liberalism/whatever is that he didn't vote against Margaret Thatcher once. Plus he dislikes Mayor Bloomberg. He's still a commie right down to his red, rancid underwear.
S.R.,
"...but don't deny that right to those of us who, like Hitchens..."
One wonders who is denying his right here? Not I.
Warren OTM
My biggest fear is that this will inspire the Republicans to respond in time- imagine how awful a "documentary" movie version of an Ann Coulter book would be.
Oooops. That's "respond in *kind*"
Steve,
I am "lightened up." And my comments stand. 🙂
xavier,
I believe the argument of many here during the "Passion wars" was that one needed to see the movie to pass judgment on the film; but I guess all those advocates of the film were just "leftists." 🙂
If you don't want to read Ann Coulter, don't. If you don't want to see Michael Moore's movies, don't.
However, if for some reason you don't want others to see/read them, then you might want to keep quiet about it. All the major partisan political celebrities are much more successful largely because the other side bitches about them so much.
If Moore wasn't so controversial, and criticized for playing loose with the facts with charges and counter-charges flying around, I'd guess that he'd be opening this weekend in about 12 theatres.
Ariana Huffington?
Seriously though, Ann would look better if she added a few pounds, she's pretty scrawny.
That's right, nitt-pick Michael Moore's film. The Iraq war was wrong and the film says so, but it might not be "accurate" in some details or something. So a movie which has some wrong details is worse than a WAR which is WRONG?? Talk about priorities out of whak.
That's right, nitt-pick George Bush's war justification. Saddam Hussein's regime was wrong and Bush's justification says so, but it might not be "accurate" in some details or something. So a speech which has some wrong details is worse than a REGIME which is WRONG?? Talk about priorities out of whak.
And Abu Ghraib's no big deal because Saddam Hussein was worse! So Michael Moore's lies are no big deal because George Bush's were worse!
Yaaay, let's all play the simpleminded partisan game, it's fun!
I can't believe all these "so" called libertraians here trying to squish dissent.
A degree of influence is really no big deal in and of itself. If you hint that it's ominous or tantamount to control without there being anything to back that up, then you are doing exactly what Hitchens is accusing Moore of.
Couldn't you say the same things about the "connections" between the Bushes and the Bin Ladens? They question is, were they enough to influence US foreign policy, or are they a big non-story?
Points taken. With so many weightier accusations to throw at this administration, if the movie's main thrust is connecting Bush to the Saudis or Bin Ladens, I'd be surprised.
At the same time, I think there's a matter of purden of proof and benefit of doubt. Hitchens thinks Moore's nebulous paranoia is completely unfounded. I'm sure Moore goes in some useless pointless directions. However, nebulous paranoia in general is very well founded considering the history of the Bush dynasty and the shameless lies of this admininstration in particular.
Hitchens apparently lives in vacuum sealed chamber where none of these things exist. If, by this point, you don't think the Bush administration's actions should be treated as ominous until proven benevolent, you're not paying attention or you're a partisan hack with a career that depends on nurturing your blindspot.
One of the most depressing things about being a libertarian is, you almost never hear a public figure advocating what you believe. The most depressing thing about being a libertarian is, when you do hear your beliefs presented to a large audience, the speaker is inevitably an idiot and/or an asshole.
Amen.
"I can't believe all these "so" called libertraians here trying to squish dissent."
If anyone here were trying to "squish" dissent, they'd be DDOS'ing your web site or threatening you.
Simple disagreement != "squishing" dissent.
Interesting use of the word "squishing," though. Why not try "mooshing" or "mashing" too. Mix 'em up a bit.
I also haven't seen any "libertraians" called "so" here either.
"I believe the argument of many here during the "Passion wars" was that one needed to see the movie to pass judgment on the film; but I guess all those advocates of the film were just "leftists." :)"
I called Michael Moore supporters leftists. I don't think that's a terribly controversial use of the word. It's slightly more justified to complain about someone prejudging The Passion because we can reasonably assume that F9/11 is pretty similar to Moore's other work, with which we're familiar. A person can form an opinion on F9/11 based on Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine. I'm not so sure that a person could form an opinion on the Passion based on Braveheart and Lethal Weapon.
That said, I still think we all had a pretty good idea what the Passion would be before seeing it. I wouldn't complain if someone criticizes the Passion for being gory without seeing it because that's just common knowledge. I don't see anything wrong with calling F9/11 biased liberal propaganda either. Of course that's what it is. Open-mindedness is good, but let's not push the concept too far.
Leftists don't need to read every Ann Coulter book to understand that she's a right-wing propagandist. Right-wingers don't need to see every Michael Moore movie to understand that he's a left-wing propagandist. And, hopefully, no one needs to see White Chicks to understand that it's going to be one god-awful movie.
"If, by this point, you don't think the Bush administration's actions should be treated as ominous until proven benevolent, you're not paying attention or you're a partisan hack..."
Pavel, spoken to me? First off, allow me to make clear that I didn't vote for Bush last time and don't plan to this time. Secondly, it's true that in general I am not into the game of guessing at the secret nefarious motivations of politicians I dislike. So yeah, while I don't necessarily assume any "benevolence" on Bush's part, I do withhold judgment that he's peddling influence in lieu of some damn good evidence to that end. And so if the movie implies things that it makes no attempt to seriously backup (and yes I it's true I have yet to see it but I will tonight and meanwhile I've heard enough about it and seen enough of Moore's methods that I believe I can reasonably talk about this aspect of the movie although I acknowledge that I may be proved wrong when I see it blah blah blah), I think that's to the movie's detriment, even if the target is a politician I would like to lose.
Heh, when my girlfriend said, "I want to see this movie even if it IS a pack of lies!" I added, in parody, "They may be lies, but at least they're OUR lies!" But at least I know they're lies...
I'm going to pre-emptively invade the pro-Bush mass-psyche for a moment because I just can't *wait* for someone to argue that Moore's anti-American movie will help promote terrorism.
I disagree with Moore on a lot of things. And if I ever had to meet the man, there's about equal odds that I'd punch his fat head as shake his hand...
Having said that. I am not going to feel anything but great about the fact that this movie is being released and is getting so much attention. In some abstract sense, this movie had to be made. And I'm proud to see an American having made it. It's a testament to our diversity and the moral goodness of the free mass market dialectic that we supposedly want to spread. When the dust settles, who will have done more to spread it across the land? Bush's GI Joeism, or Moore's ironic self-loathing? I vote for the second. But I will not forget that--in the end--perhaps they need each other.
It's time to bend our knees, libertarians. This is our God in action.
"With so many weightier accusations to throw at this administration, if the movie's main thrust is connecting Bush to the Saudis or Bin Ladens, I'd be surprised."
I don't believe that's the main thrust of the movie, nor did I, for one, ever intend to say that. Rather, I expect it's just one of a myriad of charges slung in Bush's direction.
I'm going to pre-emptively invade the pro-Bush mass-psyche for a moment because I just can't *wait* for someone to argue that Moore's anti-American movie will help promote terrorism.
Thoreau? That you?
Let's assume that the views expressed in Michael Moore's movie are factually correct (e.g. that the war in Afghanistan was designed to benefit Cheney and oil interests in general). What is his solution? A very un-P.C. (as in Public Choice...) argument that it's not the institutions that are wrong, but the people who run the institutions. Is there any reason to believe that under a different administration we would have no less rent-seeking?
steve, jason, fyodor,
The movie is not a doctoral dissertation. It is a work of art. Who cares if one argument doesn't flow into another with Aristotelian logic? He's publicizing and dramtizing arguments - nothing wrong with that. His subject is wide-ranging and amorphous, so his art is as well. It's not a Brookings white paper, and it isn't supposed to be.
And Jason, the bank actually gave him the gun. Right there in the lobby. Note that the "debunking" site uses the language, "Normally," the customer gets a receipts and picks up the gun elsewhere. Which, of course, does not mean "exclusively."
I actually never had much interest in seeing any of Moore's movies, until I came across this sort of "debunking." The tranparent dishonesty, presentation of pedantic quibbling as high criticism, and loathsome insults therein convinced me that there had to be something worthwhile about Moore, to elicit such howls from such despicable people.
BTW, showing the Iraqi kids flew kites is a demonstration of Saddam's goodness, since he "allowed" them to? How un-libertarian of you. tsk tsk.
Gary Gunnels: Your fairly obvious implication was that people here were criticizing the movie without having seen it. Holier-than-thou you, however, would act nobly and reserve judgment. I wanted to remind you that some of us were criticizing the film after having been forced to sit through its hysterics, and were fully prepared to assess the accuracy of the Hitchens article, which was high if not perfect. We are then willing to pass on our assessment of the film and the article to people like you, despite your apparent determination to voluntarily waste your time on Michael Moore.
This is really all the time I can possibly justify devoting to that buffoon. I believe the comment on here that propaganda like his is helped by the application of reasonable refutation to it is right on the money. So, Gary, enjoy the film and do your best to spend less time telling people about how you have nothing to say at the moment.
I'm going to pre-emptively invade the pro-Bush mass-psyche for a moment because I just can't *wait* for someone to argue that Moore's anti-American movie will help promote terrorism.
Hmmm. While THAT idea hadn't exactly occurred to me, what did occur to me was that while we all may understand Moore's movie as half-truths and propaganda, I don't think it's necessarily how our allies in Europe see it. It's kind of scary to travel abroad and see how (even with the myriad left and right voices available on the bookshelves) only the extreme left seems to be among the top sellers in the Barnes & Noble in places like Sydney.
Guess I just don't trust the Europeans to investigate the details of these issues, which I think makes Moore slightly dangerous if our allies buy his b.s.
I agree with linguist here. When I was in Scandinavia visiting friends, Michael Moore's show 'the awful truth' was on TV. It was very strange to see Michael Moore reenforce their stereotypes of America.....
Joe,
"The movie is not a doctoral dissertation. It is a work of art."
Out of context, I know, I know, but that's too good to pass up!
BTW, I'm with you about Hitch, but I enjoyed his article nonetheless!
(caveat: I have not seen the movie but did see the other Moores)
So, if Hitch and Moore are both propagandists, let's say, and both are being misleading to one extent or another, can we agree that Hitchens' tactics at least flow in a logical order and attempt to make a coherent argument? Someone said above that half-truths are one of the most frustrating things to deal with and I think that's true, especially when they're as obvious as with Moore. But I have to give credit to Hitchens...at the very least, he's a MUCH better writer than Moore is a filmmaker.
Xavier,
"I'm not so sure that a person could form an opinion on the Passion based on Braveheart and Lethal Weapon."
But one can have an opinion based on "The Patriot" and "Braveheart" - both horribly overwrought, historically inaccurate and ultimately pathetic films. Nevertheless, I reserved judgment regarding "The Passion," as I will with regards to Moore's new film. Also, it appears that you are pre-supposing that I am a Moore fan - which I'm not. Anyway, the point of my statement is that those who reserve judgment before seeing a film, reading a book, etc., are hardly all leftists, as you so clearly argued earlier.
"That said, I still think we all had a pretty good idea what the Passion would be before seeing it. I wouldn't complain if someone criticizes the Passion for being gory without seeing it because that's just common knowledge."
This is all beside the point; here, let me qoute you:
The lefty argument that we all need to see the movie before we pass judgment on it is simply ridiculous.
Its this particular claim that I take issue with; I'm not a leftist, yet I reserve judgment on the merits of movies, books, etc. before I see, read, etc. them. If you don't like this particular modus operandi, well, so be it; but it hardly makes me a "leftist."
"Leftists don't need to read every Ann Coulter book to understand that she's a right-wing propagandist. Right-wingers don't need to see every Michael Moore movie to understand that he's a left-wing propagandist. And, hopefully, no one needs to see White Chicks to understand that it's going to be one god-awful movie."
Again, this all beside the point.
Mike, linjuist, I couldn't help but notice that Scandinavians and Australians aren't cutting people's heads off in Iraq.
Do you actually think the mullahs would allow any of Moore's anti-piousness, anti-authority films to be shown to their subjects?
Joe that's an excellent point, and I certainly wouldn't advocate censorship of Moore...I think the underlying fear I'm feeling is just that Europeans love to think that the things that Moore vomits forth are TRUE.
So one of Moore's arguments is that the war in Afghanistan was not a response to 9/11, but an attempt to benefit Cheney's buddies so they could build an oil pipeline. This is an old conspiracy theory, but what they hey.
So, here it is, two and a half years hence. Where's the pipeline? Where are the pre-construction plans? Where are the negotiations with the other countries affected? Did the big pipeline project show up in Haliburton's year end report?
Didn't think so.
And here's the problem with Moore's technique. His individual facts may not be wrong (though if his other movies are a guide, they often are). But when you pick and choose which facts to show, and you overplay their significance, or you show them out of context, a skilled editor can make any kind of case he wants. Want to 'prove' that Bush is lazy? Just show lots of footage of him on the golf course. Want to show that he's the hardest working man around? Show lots of footage of him at his desk in the oval office. Both scenes would be 'factual'. The message imparted by them is diametrically opposite.
This is why honesty in documentary filmmakeing is far more than just making sure the facts are right. In the end, the important question is whether or not the film as viewed by the public gives an honest portrayal of the subject. Moore's movies fail wildly at this. They are made to be intentionally deceptive, to amplify the message the filmmaker wants to send.
In this sense, the comparison to Leni Reifenstahl is valid. Moore is a gifted filmmaker who gifts, like Reifenstahl's, simply make him more dangerous because the gifts are in the employ of deception and incitement.
S.R.,
"Your fairly obvious implication was that people here were criticizing the movie without having seen it."
And how does this impinge on Hitchens' rights again?
"I wanted to remind you that some of us were criticizing the film after having been forced to sit through its hysterics..."
Who forced you to do it? Did the government come along and put a gun to your head? Sorry, but I find this notion of you being forced to see the film to be somewhat comical.
"...and were fully prepared to assess the accuracy of the Hitchens article, which was high if not perfect."
And how does this impinge on Hitchens' rights again? Well, whether you are fully prepared to do so, doesn't mean I have to be; why exactly again must I accept your means of assessment? Aren't you impinging on my "rights" by criticizing my method of assessment? 🙂
"We are then willing to pass on our assessment of the film and the article to people like you, despite your apparent determination to voluntarily waste your time on Michael Moore."
And how does this impinge on Hitchens' rights again? Whether its a waste of time is my own concern; really, how dare you criticize my time wasting! Why you! Well, you're taking away my rights! 🙂
"I believe the comment on here that propaganda like his is helped by the application of reasonable refutation to it is right on the money."
I would argue that the propaganda is not so much "helped," as it is blunted or otherwise reversed. Oh I love the marketplace of ideas.
I wasn't implying a comparison, Joe, only agreeing that Moore's ideas play off many Europeans' image of America. whether right or wrong, this is for you to decide.
Mike,
Its generally the case that Americans and Europeans are equally muddled regarding their ideas about each other.
Of course in a way Michael Moore is the stereotypical American - he's fat, loud and arrogant.
Hitchens seems an example of that fine British/English tradition of ruddy, cantankerous, irascible, alcoholic journalists. I admire him for daring to excoriate Mother Theresa; wonder if any of it's true. And Timothy Spall could play him in the movie.
fyodor, I wasn't directing anything specifically at you, don't be so defensive! (I think maybe I'm still in NRO-just-linked-to-us mode). All I meant to say was that the burden or proof rests somewhere. When it comes to new charges leveled at the administration, taking every individual issue "on its own merits" is just naive at this point. No one knows nearly everything that's going on with Bush & Co. But based on what we know so far...a heuristic of nebulous paranoia isn't a bad starting point. In other words...even if Moore is way off base on a few points (as he doubtlessly is), Bush more than deserves the chubby bastard up his ass.
Thoreau? That you?
No but I'm flattered.
"I think the underlying fear I'm feeling is just that Europeans love to think that the things that Moore vomits forth are TRUE."
1) Many of them are true.
2) Stop worrying so much about what other people think. What are they going to do, charge more for stinky cheese? 😉
Michael Moore is a big, fat, obnoxious, liberal jackass that plays loose with the facts.
Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat, obnoxious, conservative jackass that plays loose with the facts.
Therefore:
(Michael Moore) x (-1) = (Rush Limbaugh)
Also, if Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are scalars, then:
(Rush Limbaugh) x (-1) = Michael Moore
Check my math for me, would ya?
It's fair to bash Moore just as much as Bush. But Hitchens cares about liberty as little as William F. Buckley does.
I think I'll skip it.
"The movie is not a doctoral dissertation. It is a work of art. Who cares if one argument doesn't flow into another with Aristotelian logic?"
Anyone who presumes to draw conclusions from his 'art'. At least, they should.
"He's publicizing and dramtizing arguments - nothing wrong with that. His subject is wide-ranging and amorphous, so his art is as well. It's not a Brookings white paper, and it isn't supposed to be."
You know, if someone painted a picture of Saddam giving money to children, with their faces beaming at the generocity of their Glorious Leader, I would still take issue with the piece. If the purpose of art is to convey a message, the artist is every bit as accountable as the Brookings scholar for the quality and content of his message. This is why we criticize propaganda, even though it is art.
"And Jason, the bank actually gave him the gun. Right there in the lobby. Note that the "debunking" site uses the language, "Normally," the customer gets a receipts and picks up the gun elsewhere. Which, of course, does not mean "exclusively."
Interesting that the bank teller who provided the gun indicated that Moore arranged over a month in advance to have one there, so his effective waiting period was one month. You really feel comfortable defending this kind of misrepresentation?
"I actually never had much interest in seeing any of Moore's movies, until I came across this sort of "debunking." The tranparent dishonesty, presentation of pedantic quibbling as high criticism, and loathsome insults therein convinced me that there had to be something worthwhile about Moore, to elicit such howls from such despicable people.
Ahh. Of course you weren't moved by the manufactured scene as high criticism and loathsome insult by implication tactics Moore uses himself.
"BTW, showing the Iraqi kids flew kites is a demonstration of Saddam's goodness, since he "allowed" them to? How un-libertarian of you. tsk tsk."
We choose the propaganda we like, I suppose. What a willfully narrow criticism you have joe. I was thinking about making a movie about the Hutuu tribe in Africa, set a few years ago. I think I'll show a scene with children playing on a perfect day, and that should pretty much tell the audience what they need to know, eh joe? That bit with the hatchets and machetes would spoil the art of my wide ranging subject matter, I think, so I'll just leave it out.
Check my math for me, would ya
Well of course they are both one dimensional, therefore scalars.
I have doubts about whether they are real. They are certainly not complex. If they are purely imaginary then:
MM * RL = MM^2 = RL^2
And that raises and interesting possibility. If you multiply MM by RL it may yield a rational product even though the two factors are both known to be irrational? but it isn?t likely.
TempC = (5/9) * (TempF - 32)
TempC = (5/9) * (9/11 - 32)
TempC = (5/9) * (9/11 - 352/11)
TempC = (5/9) * (-343/11)
TempC = -1715/99
TempC = -17.32 (approximately)
I've noticed that my friends who like Moore don't give a crap about what's real either.
From the newsmax article:
"The book presents one example after another, alternating between frightening and hilarious, to make a brilliant case for Moore having Narcissistic Personality Disorder."
You don't needa book to tell you that. Just think of his three most well-known films: "Roger & Me", "Columbine & Me", and "Terrorism & Me".
"You know, if someone painted a picture of Saddam giving money to children, with their faces beaming at the generocity of their Glorious Leader, I would still take issue with the piece. If the purpose of art is to convey a message, the artist is every bit as accountable as the Brookings scholar for the quality and content of his message. This is why we criticize propaganda, even though it is art."
This, Jason, looks an awful lot like an admission that your objection is based on the political orientation of the film. You'll forgive me if your claims of unfairness are viewed through that lens.
With this film getting so much big name Democratic support (Mario Cuomo according to the Wash. Post, Tom Harkin according to National Review quoting the AP) one wonders if ordinary people will begin to believe that US and NATO troops are fighting in Afgahnistan to make way for an oil pipeline and that Saudi nationals were allowed to fly out of the US during the no-fly period without having been interviewed by the FBI. If they do, it will be a terrible indictment of the Bush administration's handling of this PR challenge.
We might want to let the guy make his point and then respond to his argument, instead of preemptively responding to his personality.
equally reputable source?
substantive shots in the Hitchens article?
This guy really makes you people lose your marbles, doesn't he?
I find it amusing that so many people, whether liberal or conservative, have to attack Moore and his films so venemously. They just can't handle the truth!
Of course, you all LOVE your Fox News, Time magazine, CNN, NY Times, et al. Fair and accurate right? Right? Our president never lies, right?
For you losers who believe that Moore's films are full of lies and misinfo: go to his website. He itemizes and refutes every lame-ass allegation going around regarding his film's content.
You people are so naieve: you fall hook, line and sinker for the mudslingers who can't handle the truth being laid out in Moore's films and books. You'll never get it. Poor wet diaper babies...now go watch your Fox news, we wouldn't want your reality bubble to burst.
Shazam,
Are you being serious?
Shazam should be commended for his well-reasoned, substance-laden arguments.
shazam,
Can we please not turn this into a flame war? Thanks. 🙂
Anyway, I'll reserve judgment on the film just as I did with "The Passion of the Christ." Ultimately I wasn't fond of that film - I liked "The Last Temptation of Christ" far more - but I tried not to pre-judge the thing before I saw it.
As to what Hitchens says on the matter of the film, I can't say that I find his willingness to let fly with personal insults and the like to be all that convincing.
Propaganda spreading lies, conspiracy theories and half-truths, lapped up by the masses and mass-media, directly aimed to debase and destroy the American democratic political process, covering up oppression and genocide, pimping genocidal dictators while pumping millions into the pocket of a greedy, opportunistic millionarie who is praised by "critics" as "visionary" and "heroric."
Doesn't this shit really belong in the 20th century with the millions of slain Kulaks and the emply rice bowls of Mao's China?
joe,
Well, (a) Moore is not a government, he's an individual; and (b) if one film by Moore destroys the Republic then I would say that we have far more problems than Michael Moore. Also, as far as I can tell, this is hardly being "lapped up"; quite a number of people have criticized the film, and will continue to do so.
Um, personal insults? Did you actually read the article? Hitchens mostly harnesses the law of the excluded middle (either a or not a, but not both), which I think we can all agree is a valid line of philosophical argumentation, to show that Moore's mockumentary deals in insinuating falsehoods that fly just below the legal requirements for libel. By all means, reserve judgment until you've seen this ridiculous waste of time, but don't deny that right to those of us who, like Hitchens, have the misfortune to simultaneously possess functioning brains and a mandate forcing us for whatever reason to sit through several hours of this leftist self-hate fest masquerading as a Palme d'Or laureate.
Oh, lighten up, Gary and joe. Can't you appreciate the proper use of invective?
There's nothing wrong with personal insults, as long as they're accurate and funny and used sparingly, alongside substantive criticism, and the ones in the Hitchens piece generally are.
Everything Hitchens says about Moore's tortured positions is true. Moore's just throwing every anti-Bush fact, opinion, trope and conspiracy theory at the wall and seeing which ones will stick, regardless of whether they make sense or contradict each other. If the fat sonofabitch doesn't take his own ideas seriously, why should anyone else?
I mean really -- I've heard a lot of articulate anti-war opinions posted at H&R. Not one of them has argued that poor little Saddam was a victim, not hurting anybody and just letting his people fly kites and such, until big, bad Dubya decided to attack.
I hope that the folks at Moore's "war room" are usually more coherent than this example from his Web site.
A spokesperson for Fahrenheit 9/11 released the entire transcript of the exchange between Michael Moore and Rep. Mark Kennedy (see below). None of this exchange is included in the film. No statements by Rep. Kennedy are in the film. There was no editing of his remarks and Congressman Kennedy will remain in the film.
Eric: You were close, but you forgot the metric *date* conversion -- 9/11 -> 11/9 , which gives ...
TempC = (5/9) * (11/9 - 352/11)
TempC ~ -17.09
Now back to your regularly scheduled flamewar.
Nick, would you mind converting "Farenheit" to "Fahrenheit" (she asked sweetly)? Thanks, there's a dear.
Hitchens makes many good and some not so good ones. One of his points that I'd criticize is the notion that it's contradictory to both claim that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq and that we sent too few troops. Why is that contradictory? Having said that, it's a little too convenient that Moore slips from quasi-pacifist to military expert. Judging by Bowling for Columbine, the throwing mud against the wall analogy seems to fit his style. I gotta go see F9/11 tonight, might report tomorrow. I think one reason he stirs up such ire is that there's little more irritating and maddening than the craftily contrived half-truth, and there's maybe no better way to contrive a half-truth than to edit your own movie.
That Hitchens piece is an embarassment. It's so personal. I wonder if the old Trotskyite Hitch still has the usual Trotskyite intellectual vanguardsman's class disdain for labor-movement lefties like Moore.
That anti-Moore book sounds like some damned fine armchair journalism. Did they dig up a single new thing that hasn't been widely reported already, or is it all copied and pasted from Nexis?
I'll make a prediction:Fahrenheit 911 will turn public opinion on George W. roughly in the same manner that Passion of the Christ made us all convert to Catholicism,or the way in which support for the NRA collapsed after Moore released his last movie,Bowling for Columbine.
History buffs may also recall how Oliver Stone totally cracked the Kennedy murder case with his movie JFK,or the way in which his biographical Nixon completely changed our view of the 37th President.
I'm sure Fahrenheit will take its deserved place among the movies that have changed the course of history.
S.R., I think some of Hitchens' application of the law of the excluded middle is telling. But his repeated suggestion that opposing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is at odds with the contention that the wars were fought without enough troops on the ground isn't convincing. Cleary, someone could oppose the wars on moral or political grounds but believe that the strategic and tactical requirements of the wars called for a greater number of troops than the administration committed.
Uhm...I wouldn't call the Hitchens article "damning." It's at best slightly less annoying than the bullshit Moore spews. Even though I commiserate with the way in which Moore has obviously rubbed Hitchens the wrong way...his accusations are notably lame and tired.
Here's a response worth considering to Hitchens own distortions and lies. (God bless the Hegelian dialectic).
http://fray.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&m=11200541
Hitchens states Moore's points about the relationship between the Bin Laden and Bush families, but then decalres them moot because "Either the Saudis run U.S. policy ... or they do not." Hitchens also posits other dubious either/or scenarios which are barely relevant to Moore's argument. Hitchens, like Bush, may wish strongly for a world that is so binary and simple, but it is not the case. Left unsaid by Hitchens is that the common business interests of the two families may influence government policy.
None of these "connections" [that Hitchens points out] between Iraq and Al Quaeda are indisputable. Some of them are laughably unlikely. That Saddam was "connected" to some form of "terrorism" is inarguable but also uncontested. The question is, Were these "connections" substantial enough to merit the sacrifice of American lives? More to the point, did they merit the sacrifice of more lives than had been or arguably would be lost via Saddam-sponsored terrorism? (As a matter of fairness, I don't think anyone has the answer to this, at least in part because we cannot trust what the Bush administration tells us about these things. Their reputation for honesty is, at best, wanting.)
Interesting...Hitch on Moore. Two guys I have such near equally and oppositely flavored antipathy and admiration for. I wouldn't recommend taking either of them at face value.
This, Jason, looks an awful lot like an admission that your objection is based on the political orientation of the film.
Under those criteria, is it disallowable to be put off by Triumph of the Will?
This, Jason, looks an awful lot like an admission that your objection is based on the political orientation of the film.
::snort:: As if most people's support for the film isn't based on its political orientation.
When have you ever heard serious critics or students of film praise Moore's brilliant aesthetic, pacing, mise en scene, or shot selection? As a filmmaker, he's workmanlike at best, clumsy and film-student-bad at worst.
Think of the top documentary filmmakers in history: Morris, Riefenstahl, the Maysles brothers, and so foth. Moore doesn't even come close to them as a filmmaker. As a polemicist, he could teach even Riefenstahl lessons. As a filmmaker, not so much.
Anyone who thinks that anyone else (with rare exceptions) is evaluating this movie as a movie is almost hopelessly naive.
"This, Jason, looks an awful lot like an admission that your objection is based on the political orientation of the film. You'll forgive me if your claims of unfairness are viewed through that lens."
It is a comment that the willful exclusion of the experiences of the Iraqi majority from a piece that purports to tell us the 'real story' is, generously, misleading. As a liberal, I am surprised that you are so willing to go along with this treatment of a government so uncritically.
can't handle the truth being laid out in Moore's films and books.
You sound like a neo-con Bush fan, just with a different god.
I do love how they call him a "documentarian." Nothing he's ever done qualifies as a "documentary". He is a humorist and a propagandist, and basing your opinions of the Bush administration on his cuts, edits, and overdubs is functionally no different than basing your opinion of Gulf War 1.5 on Bush's assurances.
What, no one has given kudos to Warren for his -very- amusing post?! I should have taken the time to do so yesterday.
One stop shopping for politics and math punnery at H&R.
Thanks for the grin, Warren!