28 June 2004

For spacious skies

I'm really looking forward to hearing the right-wing talk shows that I listen to during the week put their spin on the fact that Fahrenheit 9/11 is the most popular movie in America.


9 Comments so far

  1. Ray June 28th, 2004 2:59 pm

    Aparently Dubya's wag-the-dog tactic is to transfer power in Iraq, thus pushing the news about F9/11 to the back burner.

  2. Z June 28th, 2004 8:53 pm

    Here are some interesting articles that I have found. Granted I am an overt Michael Moore hater.

    http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

    http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

    The second one is actually about bowling for columbine, but is interesting none the less.

  3. Ray June 29th, 2004 7:42 am

    I have read these sites and I applaud them. I also like BowlingForTruth.com

    However, I liked Bowling For Columbine and I think I'll like F911 though I'm well aware it presents a very slanted view of things.

    I don't agree with most of the criticisms that are based on the use of filmic techniques to "alter" the meaning of events. After all, that's what movie-making is all about and Moore is a good filmmaker

  4. Z June 29th, 2004 8:32 pm

    I agree that altering things is a big part of movie-making, but moore make movies under the banner of "documentary," which are, or at least should be held by a higher responsibility to the truth. Of course many documentaries, if not all, are going to have a slant to them, but I do not think that it is appropriate to apply this slant through editing people's words to make them say something different.

  5. Z June 29th, 2004 8:47 pm

    Also, check out his website. Using his film as propaganda, he has setup a pledge for people to take. It is like Tammanyhall.com. This is an actual quote from his pledge: "Offer a six-pack to anyone in the office who votes (make sure you're not working in cubicles full of Republicans!). Promise to have sex with a nonvoter - whatever it takes!"

  6. Ray June 30th, 2004 3:15 am

    Obviously a little zealous (OK very zealous, too zealous even), but he's a skilled filmmaker.

    I don't believe Mr. Moore alters what anyone says, though the links you provide give copious examples of him showing successively clips of people saying things at one time with things they may have said at another. Not disengenuous since he makes no claim that the clips are the same event.

    In writing, when you make such a truncation to a quote, you add an elipses. In film, you cut to another clip. Such is the langauge of film.

    There is no such thing as a true film. The truth claim associated with film is imposed by the viewer -- the medium itself is, like any medium, indifferent to content.

    "Documentary" refers to what is being filmed, not how the resulting footage is edited together.

  7. Z June 30th, 2004 6:41 am

    I have no doubt that he is a very skilled film maker. That was never my contention. My beef was with his intentional distortion of truth. True, he does not change what words people say, but he changes the order in which they say them. Thus changing the meaning. You may be correct about the "language of film," in fact, I am sure you would know way more about this subject than I. However, this film is not meant solely for people with such knowledge, it is meant as a political tool to reach the masses. This is not entertainment, it is portrayed as a truthful representation of events. That said, it may be art, but even as art, due to its nature, I feel at least that it should not intentionally dupe people into believing a particular ideology. Of course anything produced on this subject is going to have a slant, but there is plenty of problems out there to focus on without distorting the truth.

  8. Z June 30th, 2004 6:42 am

    As far as there being no truth claim, I really don't see where you are coming from. Moore presents himself in and out of his movies as something of a defender of truth. If I am not mistaken, much of his hatred of Dubya is based on his belief that the man is a liar and a cheat. Thus, to say that the film does not claim to be true, though it uses real footage, talks to real people, and is directed by the bulwark of verity seems to me to be absurd. If the film does not claim to be true then it claims nothing at all, and is just a harmless work of fantasy.

  9. Ray July 1st, 2004 12:06 am

    I mean to say that as a medium motion picture film is no more or less capable of encapsulating truth than the prose, or still photography, or poetry, or sculpture, or archetecture.
    Monolithic 'Truth' is impossible to capture, you can only present small truths, and I think Mr. Moore is honestly presenting the truth as he sees it. He may be disillusioned and foolish, but I do not think of him as a liar.

    I mean, there are alot of aspects to reality and choosing which ones to show in a two hour film is a difficult choice. That's why all documentaries (and the evening news) has a slant, because, at the very least, it is saying, "hey, these are the aspects of reality that are worth looking at." Sure, Mr. Moore chose to show the aspects of reality which support his beliefs, but there's nothing wrong with that, since, I believe the point of the film is to show why he has these opinions about the President. I believe it's an accurate account of his possibly faulty rational.

Leave a comment