Trailer for fahrenheit 911....

[Rivercard]

I don't like his tactics (i.e. the Heston "interview" in Bowling for Columbine).

A lot of you guys seem to think the infamous Heston interview was a cheap shot. Did anyone force Heston to do the interview? No. Is it Heston's responsibility to understand who he is talking to and what the interview will be about before he agrees to do the interview? Yes. Is it immoral or unfair for Moore to edit the interview? No (almost all interviews are edited - 60 minutes, Dateline NBC etc).

The fact is Heston said what he said and Moore filmed it. What did Heston say that was taken out of context?

 

[Rivercard]

I didn't intend to imply he was. All I'm saying is that he's not reporting "news" in his films. He has a pretty wide margin of error for what can be called "truth" as a filmmaker. Much moreso than he would IF he were a reporter.

Gotcha

 

[Pariah]

A lot of you guys seem to think the infamous Heston interview was a cheap shot. Did anyone force Heston to do the interview? No. Is it Heston's responsibility to understand who he is talking to and what the interview will be about before he agrees to do the interview? Yes. Is it immoral or unfair for Moore to edit the interview? No (almost all interviews are edited - 60 minutes, Dateline NBC etc).

The fact is Heston said what he said and Moore filmed it. What did Heston say that was taken out of context?

The interview quickly turned into badgering an old man, IMO. That's what I didn't like.

And, when Moore left the photo of the little girl who was shot and killed (I forget the exact circumstances of her death) on his driveway, I also thought that was uncalled for. It's not like Heston killed her, but that's most certainly the implication.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

The problem with Moore is not his movies. They are actually well-crafted and funny and he can do or say whatever the hell he wants for as long as he wants because it's a right we enjoy as Americans. The problem is he calls his movies 'documentaries,' when they clearly are not. A documentary is a non-biased film based upon factual evidence. Moore's films are completely biased and are very lax when it comes to factual obligation as Djaughe's previous post illustrated.

Fahrenheit 9/11, with its release date prior to the elections and Moore's admittal that the movie should effect the way people vote, actually fits into the category of propaganda.

propaganda

1. the deliberate attempt by some individual or group to form, control, or alter the attitudes of other groups by the use of instruments of communication, with the intention that in any given situation the reaction of those so influenced will be that desired by the propagandist.

2. information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause (in this case; not voting for George Bush and co.)

documentary
1. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

We need to be careful in discussing this film because in my opinion, it does not fit into the genre that the filmmaker intends.

 

[Rivercard]

The interview quickly turned into badgering an old man, IMO. That's what I didn't like.

And, when Moore left the photo of the little girl who was shot and killed (I forget the exact circumstances of her death) on his driveway, I also thought that was uncalled for. It's not like Heston killed her, but that's most certainly the implication.

That was not some poor old man being taken advantage of, that was the president of the NRA. But I'll agree with you about the photo on the driveway being over the top.

 

[Pariah]

That was not some poor old man being taken advantage of, that was the president of the NRA. But I'll agree with you about the photo on the driveway being over the top.

The president of the NRA happens to be a feeble old man.

 

[Chaplin]

A lot of you guys seem to think the infamous Heston interview was a cheap shot. Did anyone force Heston to do the interview? No. Is it Heston's responsibility to understand who he is talking to and what the interview will be about before he agrees to do the interview? Yes. Is it immoral or unfair for Moore to edit the interview? No (almost all interviews are edited - 60 minutes, Dateline NBC etc).

The fact is Heston said what he said and Moore filmed it. What did Heston say that was taken out of context?

Dude, are you kidding me?

It is safe to say that Michael Moore deals with facts. BUT, his presentation of the facts produce his opinion, rather than a straight document of said truths. Why? Because he edits according to his views--and really, there is nothing wrong with that.

But it is absolutely and positively wrong that he promotes only facts, because those facts have been ******** to promote his own agenda. That's exactly what politicians do.

Is his opinion legitimate? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean you have to like the way he presents it.

As for the Heston interview, his "creative editing" is not only producing a view not expressed by Heston, but it is ethically irresponsible.

 

[Chaz]

The problem with Moore is not his movies. They are actually well-crafted and funny and he can do or say whatever the hell he wants for as long as he wants because it's a right we enjoy as Americans. The problem is he calls his movies 'documentaries,' when they clearly are not. A documentary is a non-biased film based upon factual evidence. Moore's films are completely biased and are very lax when it comes to factual obligation as Djaughe's previous post illustrated.

Fahrenheit 9/11, with its release date prior to the elections and Moore's admittal that the movie should effect the way people vote, actually fits into the category of propaganda.

propaganda

1. the deliberate attempt by some individual or group to form, control, or alter the attitudes of other groups by the use of instruments of communication, with the intention that in any given situation the reaction of those so influenced will be that desired by the propagandist.

2. information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause (in this case; not voting for George Bush and co.)

documentary
1. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

We need to be careful in discussing this film because in my opinion, it does not fit into the genre that the filmmaker intends.

This film appears to be more propaganda and a political hatchet job then a documentary. Moore has the right to show what ever he wants in his films but lets be honest about what they are.

 

[Pariah]

As for the Heston interview, his "creative editing" is not only producing a view not expressed by Heston, but it is ethically irresponsible.

I don't remember the interview itself being cut to change the context, but rather a number of speeches were made to look like the NRA and Heston came to Colorado shortly after the Columbine incident and deliver an incredibly insensitive presentation--which wasn't the case.

But, I could be wrong. Did he cut the interview in Heston's house, too?

 

[Renz]

I don't remember the interview itself being cut to change the context, but rather a number of speeches were made to look like the NRA and Heston came to Colorado shortly after the Columbine incident and deliver an incredibly insensitive presentation--which wasn't the case.

But, I could be wrong. Did he cut the interview in Heston's house, too?

Didn't Moore edit the Heston interview so that some things Heston said at the end of the interview were made to seem like he said them earlier so that they weren't in the same context?

 

[Rivercard]

As for the Heston interview, his "creative editing" is not only producing a view not expressed by Heston, but it is ethically irresponsible.

How do you know that? Again, almost all interviews are edited. What was edited out of this interview that would have appropriately expressed Heston's views? Was he saying brilliant things inbetween the idiotic comments Moore showed?

 

[Chaz]

How do you know that? Again, almost all interviews are edited. What was edited out of this interview that would have appropriately expressed Heston's views? Was he saying brilliant things inbetween the idiotic comments Moore showed?

Context is an easy thing to manipulate. If someone makes a comment in a certain context, than someone generates a different premise then shows the comment it could appear much different than it was origionaly intended.

It is not difficult to do when the person controls the editing of a film.

 

[Dan H]

Okay lets have all his lies listed here what did he lie about?

Spinsanity

I linked to this site earlier but you ignored it.

"Bowling for Columbine" is more of the same. Although, like Stupid White Men, it's full of hilarious moments, Moore can't seem to keep his facts or his arguments straight.

Counterintuitively for a liberal, he wants to argue that gun control is not a significant factor in America's high rate of gun deaths compared to other countries, and to do so, he travels to Canada, which he claims is similar to the U.S. in every way except its attitude towards self-reliance. He dismisses typical liberal concerns about poverty creating crime, noting that, "Liberals contend [gun violence is a result of] all the poverty we have here. But the unemployment rate in Canada is twice what we have here." By every measure of international comparison, though, Canada's poverty rate is significantly lower than that of the U.S., thanks to the generous social insurance programs that he repeatedly praises in the film.

Much more mendaciously, Moore has apparently altered footage of an ad run by the Bush/Quayle campaign in 1988 to implicate Bush in the Willie Horton scandal. Making a point about the use of racial symbols to scare the American public, he shows the Bush/Quayle ad called "Revolving Doors," which attacked Michael Dukakis for a Massachusetts prison furlough program by showing prisoners entering and exiting a prison (the original ad can be seen here [Real Player video]). Superimposed over the footage of the prisoners is the text "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." This caption is displayed as if it is part of the original ad. However, existing footage, media reports and the recollections of several high-level people involved in the campaign indicate that the "Revolving Doors" ad did not explicitly mention Horton, unlike the notorious ad run by the National Security Political Action Committee (which had close ties to Bush media advisor Roger Ailes). In addition, the caption is incorrect -- Horton did not kill anyone while on prison furlough (he raped a woman).

Although he uses statistics much less frequently in "Bowling for Columbine" than in Stupid White Men, Moore still manages to present at least one figure inaccurately. During a stylized overview of US foreign policy, he claims that the U.S. gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001. The Taliban aid tale is a favorite of Moore's that he has repeated in numerous media appearances over the past year. Contrary to his claim, the aid did not go to the Taliban -- it actually consisted of food and food security programs administered by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations to relieve an impending famine.

Beyond the satire and the fabrications, just what is Moore's argument? It's often hard to tell. At times, while dismissing the influence of pop culture, he blames the government's militarism, suggesting that it's somehow relevant that the day of the Columbine High School shootings was also the day of one of the heaviest U.S.-led NATO bombings in Yugoslavia. (Moore is an ardent opponent of U.S. military intervention - soon after the war on terrorism began, he called the President and Vice President "Bin Bush" and "Bin Cheney" and said on the radio program "Democracy Now" [Real Player audio], "We're the national sniper when it comes to going after countries like Iraq.") Even setting aside this questionable chain of causality, Moore contradicts his own thesis that foreign bombing leads to domestic gun violence when he approvingly notes that the United Kingdom, which played a leading role in bombing Yugoslavia with the U.S., had only 68 gun homicides the same year America had 11,127.

Contradicting himself doesn't seem to be a problem for Moore, though. In the movie and subsequent media appearances, he has derided America's lack of a social safety net, comparing us unfavorably to Canada, even though he states explicitly in the film that the two countries don't differ significantly in terms of poverty.

Moore also claims several times that our higher gun homicide rate must be the result of American culture rather than the greater number of guns in our country, citing the fact that Canada has a much lower gun homicide rate despite having seven million guns in its ten million homes (Moore ignores the fact that Canada has significantly fewer handguns and a much stricter gun licensing system). Yet that doesn't stop him from repeatedly bashing the anti-gun control NRA and even making a visit to the home of its president, Charlton Heston, the climax of the movie. In an e-mail to supporters , Moore even referred to Heston as a "gun supremacist." And in an interview on Phil Donahue's MSNBC show recently, Moore said he supports banning all handguns just minutes before stating, "I don't think, ultimately, getting rid of the guns will be the answer."

Repeatedly, though, he returns to the issue of fear in the movie, claiming that excessive coverage of gun violence by the media makes Americans scared of each other and therefore more violent. This circular argument doesn't make any sense either. On the one hand, Moore has made an entire film purporting to investigate why the U.S. has the highest rate of gun violence in the developed world. He then attempts to answer the question by theorizing that the media provides too much coverage of gun violence, causing citizens to fear each other. If gun violence is really so bad, though, shouldn't the media be covering it and don't citizens have something to be afraid of? And if the media is indeed over-covering the issue and America is safer than we think, why did Moore make this film?

Ironically, Moore interviews and cites the work of USC Professor Barry Glassner, whose book The Culture of Fear attacks the media for sensationalizing incidents of bad news while ignoring the bigger picture. One of the book's primary examples is extensive media coverage of school shootings that ignores the overall downward trend in youth violence in recent years. Indeed, Glassner points out that people are three times more likely to be struck dead by lightning than die in a school shooting. Moore, however, focuses extensively in the film on the Columbine massacre and a school shooting in his hometown of Flint, Michigan, and doesn't seem all that concerned with the country's epidemic of lightning strikes.

Here, as ever, Michael Moore just doesn't seem to know what he thinks. When pressed, in fact, he isn't even sure he actually has a point. Appearing on CNN's Moneyline last spring, host Lou Dobbs asked him about the inaccuracies in Stupid White Men. "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?" Moore responded.

Satire is not an excuse for dissembling. Great satirists like Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain used hyperbole as a form of social criticism. Michael Moore, however, uses lies, distortions, and nonsensical arguments to mask cheap attacks and promote his own political agenda. Take him seriously at your own risk.

Clarification - 11/20 9:34 AM EST: The figure on homicides in the United Kingdom should have read that that country had 68 gun homicides the same year the U.S. had 11,127, not total homicides.

 

[Rivercard]

Context is an easy thing to manipulate. If someone makes a comment in a certain context, than someone generates a different premise then shows the comment it could appear much different than it was origionaly intended.

It is not difficult to do when the person controls the editing of a film.

Why do you assume that is what is happening here? Not trying to be dense, I just don't understand why you guys refuse to believe Heston could make an idiot out of himself without Moore's help.

 

[Chaz]

Why do you assume that is what is happening here? Not trying to be dense, I just don't understand why you guys refuse to believe Heston could make an idiot out of himself without Moore's help.

I'm sure Heston is capable of making an idiot of himself. My only problem is the supposed status of Moore's films as "documentaries".

What do you think Rivercard, are Moore's films honest documentaries or opinion pieces?

 

[Rivercard]

I'm sure Heston is capable of making an idiot of himself. My only problem is the supposed status of Moore's films as "documentaries".

What do you think Rivercard, are Moore's films honest documentaries or opinion pieces?

I think they are entertainment & opinion pieces. I think he is passionate about his beliefs and I happen to agree with him most (not all) of the time. I love that he exposes corporate executives, politicians and NRA presidents as the slimy weasels/hypocrites that they truly are.

 

[Chaz]

I think they are entertainment & opinion pieces. I think he is passionate about his beliefs and I happen to agree with him most (not all) of the time. I love that he exposes corporate executives, politicians and NRA presidents as the slimy weasels/hypocrites that they truly are.

I think the correct word would be portrays instead of exposes.

I don't mind shaking up the establishment, asking hard questions, or filmmaking to express an opinion or viewpoint. In fact I think is commendable.

I do think he damages his own cause with many people by playing fast and loose with the facts in order to portray his view of the truth.

 

[Pariah]

I think they are entertainment & opinion pieces. I think he is passionate about his beliefs and I happen to agree with him most (not all) of the time. I love that he exposes corporate executives, politicians and NRA presidents as the slimy weasels/hypocrites that they truly are.

Why is HEston a slimy hypocrite? He advocates the right for citizens to bear arms. That doesn't make him responsible for a girl's death--not even remotely. The interview with Moore was unfortunate. Obviously, Heston didn't run this one by his PR counsel and was woefully unprepared. But, why was Moore asking him questions about a little girl's murder anyway?

EDIT: For the record, I'm neither a huge Heston fan nor a gun freak, but I do belive in the right to bear arms even though I don't.

 

[Rivercard]

Why is HEston a slimy hypocrite?

IMO, the NRA is absurdly unreasonable and self-serving in their hard-line stances regarding firearms to the detriment of the population at large. Heston is the president of that organization - hence he is slimy.

 

[Evil Ash]

IMO, the NRA is absurdly unreasonable and self-serving in their hard-line stances regarding firearms to the detriment of the population at large. Heston is the president of that organization - hence he is slimy.

Okay, but what makes him a hypocrite?

 

[vikesfan]

Heston's group is pro gun. Gun killed girl. 1 + 1 = 2

 

[cardsunsfan]

Heston's group is pro gun. Gun killed girl. 1 + 1 = 2

Do you really think that simplisticly?

 

[Evil Ash]

Do you really think that simplisticly?

Don't waste your breath. He's lost in his own little world.

He knows all about how the American media works because he read 4 books about it. Of course I'm in the profession, know all about the profession and how things work but my opinion is useless because of those 4 books.

 

[Pariah]

Heston's group is pro gun. Gun killed girl. 1 + 1 = 2

Ford makes Automobiles. Automobiles kill people. 1+1=2.

Hey, this is fun.

 

[vikesfan]

Ford makes Automobiles. Automobiles kill people. 1+1=2.

Hey, this is fun.

Cars are not a killing machine like a gun. A gun is a killing machine. That is the difference.