I don't want to nag (but tough, I'm going to anyway! [img]tongue.gif[/img] ), but you might want to exercise a little caution with regards to Moore's directing style. With Farenheit, I wouldn't say you are going to see 'what happened', regarding 9/11, rather, you're going to see what 'Moore wants you to think happened'. Which is fine, nothing wrong with that. But as has been circularly argued time and time again in the other 'Moore' thread, Moore has a habit of leaving some 'important' bits of info out, as well as employing creative editing techniques to give people's quotes unintended meanings.

Moore is a great story teller, and his films usually raise interesting questions. But as Illumina has alluded to, I think that cinema staff should hand out pinches of salt to all moviegoers that see this one [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 07-07-2004, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

it's probably because it's real footage, not hollywood invention (you can get away with alot more if youre using special effects)

{edit I haven't seen it, but I'm assuming the gruesome images were real photo's/video footage, not manufactured special effects}

[ 07-07-2004, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

The point is 11,000 troops isn't enough for a country like Afghnistan if you consider it's size and geography. Except for Kabul and a few other cities, most of the country is in anarchy and not even properly secured. I'm not saying that there should be 120,000 (way too many troops) troops in Afhganistan, but 20,000-30,000 should be sufficiant and that's what many experts say there should be.

So was Moore saying no diplomacy should have been used? 8 weeks without attacking, and there is something wrong with that? Wouldn't Moore have complained if they'd moved into Afghanistan the next day? 8 weeks was too long to put the military pieces into place AND build international support? How long before Pakistan agreed to cooperate? Were were the troops going to stage from on September 12th? I don't think it is hard to see through that argument at all.

I saw Moore with Charlie Rose on PBS, his only position is to oppose Bush's position. He complains that we waited too long, but doesn't agree we should have gone earlier. He complains too few troops were set, but doesn't believe moore troops should have been sent. If you complain that Bush waited too long and sent too few, how can you reasonably say you didn't agree with going earlier and sending more? Nearly ever question Rose asked based on the film Moore answered with, no I don't think we should have done that either. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not sure exactly, but I think Moore was refering to 2 months after the invasion of Afghanistan. I don't think that it took 8 weeks to invade and I belive that they started attacking Afghanistan in early October 2001 (less than a month after 9/11). I maybe mistaken and you can correct me if I'm wrong.

It's a difficult question...

I'll have to see the film, but I'll answer the question more as folows, as the original is too general, but if it is objectionable by the starter of this thread, I'll attempt instead to tackle the original question, as posed.

First, How objectively does Moore present to the audience his argument, and in the process, how in line with the reality of the situation is his statements?

Second, how much spin does Moore apply to a given point in order to serve his interest?

Third, Does he do any of the infamous things he did in BfC to give his film more flip, that could leave him wide open to honest and objective criticism?

Fourth, Does he seriously stand on any logical fallacies? Any argument based on them can be instantly discredited.

Fifth, does he make any tangential connections and argue from them?

Sixth, Does he make an argument contrary to the data presentable?

Finally, will he ever have a real answer to this:

David Kopel's 59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11.

This maybe an interesting read in response to the sentiment that the very emotional scenes showing Lila Liscomb's grief were tasteless or exploitive:

Link- Ann Arbor News via M.Moore.com


July 5th, 2004 9:04 pm
Lila Lipscomb Brings Her Antiwar Plea to Ann Arbor, MI


Grieving mother of Iraq war casualty brings her antiwar plea to Ann Arbor: Lila Lipscomb featured in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
By Jo Collins Mathis / Ann Arbor News
Monday, 5, 2004

Many of the 860 people who filled the Michigan Theater Sunday night for a benefit screening of Michael Moore's controversial movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" spent the first half of the movie applauding antiwar sentiment, hissing at members of the Bush administration and laughing at the president's foibles or a gum-smacking Britney Spears expressing her support for him.

But when the movie switched to scenes of Lila Lipscomb, the grieving mother of a Flint soldier killed in a helicopter crash in Iraq on April 2, 2003, there was silence. And then tears.

The fact that Lipscomb was in the audience made her scenes even more poignant.

Lipscomb was greeted with a standing ovation when she took the stage after the film was shown at the benefit for the Ann Arbor Area Committee for Peace. She spoke for about 10 minutes, then answered questions collected from the audience.

As much as she is anti-Bush, Lipscomb is pro- Michael Moore, whom she thanks for having the courage to speak up. She said the Flint-area native gave her the authority to withdraw any part of the film that included her and her family, and he did not manipulate her.

"Manipulation, no," she said. "If you want manipulation, look at the White House."

In fact, she said that since the first day Moore filmed her, on Feb. 4, 2004, she has felt as if a dark cloud over Flint has lifted.

In the film, Lipscomb is surrounded by her extended family in her living room as she reads her son's last letter home. He thanked her for sending the Bible, books and candy. And he wondered what in the world is wrong with Bush, that he tries so much to be like his father. "He got us out here for nothing whatsoever," he wrote. "I am so furious right now, Mama."

"I cannot wait to get home and get back to my life."

Sgt. Michael Pedersen, a crew chief on a Black Hawk helicopter, was killed two weeks later.

Lipscomb, 50, hasn't been the same since. And she said she's not stopping until America wakes up.

Perhaps the loudest applause of the night came in response to the question: What will get conservative Christians to vote against Bush?

"Read your Bible," she said.

Asked how to support people in the service who have doubts about their decision, she said they should remember that it's their oath they're serving under; not for the administration.

She said Bush stole the presidency and she's praying for his defeat.

"How do you think (Sen. John) Kerry can make a difference?" she was asked of the apparent Democratic Party presidential nominee.

"If he has integrity, a whole bunch," she responded.

She said how she always hated antiwar demonstrators and considered them a slap in her face. "I burned in my soul," she said.

Now she said, she understands that they were protesting the war, not the men and women in it.

Lipscomb urged the audience to encourage others to see the movie, and said she won't waste any energy debating the film with anyone who hasn't seen it.

Victor Walbridge of Ann Arbor said he was surprised the movie was as good as it was considering the inaccuracies in Moore's previous documentary, "Bowling for Columbine." And he enjoyed listening to Lipscomb.

"Obviously, she's coming from a position that most people can't appreciate, which confers a legitimacy she couldn't have had she not lost her son in Iraq," he said. "Her ability to speak is somewhat surprising considering her position is conferred on her at random. If my mom had to get up and speak to people because I'd been killed in Iraq, I don't think she'd be that good."

He said he was surprised by her religious notes. During the question/answer session, Lipscomb told the crowd God always speaks to her. She said she's convinced we're in the end times, and it has nothing to do with George Bush.

Mary Lou Spencer of Ann Arbor said she is counting on Lipscomb to keep speaking the truth.

"I was surprised she was a red-blooded American," Spencer said. "I thought she might be more of a liberal, but she's a conservative, and that should be made note of. A conservative who believes the facts will reign."

Lipscomb, 50, has been making the media rounds in recent days and will fly to London today for a premiere of the film there on Tuesday.

That's refreshing... and the article brings with it an interesting point. I found Fahrenheit 9/11 one of the most interactive movies I've seen in a *while*, second only to Rocky Horror. People were applauding throughout, laughing, booing, the whole works. A live audience is a beautiful thing.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Looks like the movie is a big hit in France.

http://www.canoe.ca/JamMovies/jul8_france-ap.html

Gets both Positive and Negative reviews there too.</font>

Even less kind was France's superstar philosopher, Bernard-Henri Levy, who dismissed Fahrenheit 9/11 as dishonest.

"When Michael Moore describes Iraq, before the American intervention, as a sort of oasis of peace and happiness, where people flew kites .... there wasn't only that," Levy said on RTL radio.

Levy noted that he opposed the war and considers Bush a "catastrophe for America." But, he added: "Saddam Hussein was also a horrible dictator. And that is not in the film of Michael Moore."

[ 07-08-2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Agreed... Moore is at his best when he just sticks the camera on someone and lets them dig their own hole. He's also at his most credible when he does that. Once he starts narrating -- that's where he gets himself in trouble.

After much wrangling, I decided I can wait until video. I'd just be going to be up-to-date on my current events, and frankly, I prefer to see Spider Man, Arthur, iRobot, etc. first. I think with the number of movies I want to see and my average of 1.5 movies/2 weeks, I just won't have time for this one. Which is nice -- it feels good to just "let it go." Now, exhale.... inhale... exhale... 2,3,4... inhale...2,3,4.

Ah but he misses the point, since one of Moore's admitted objectives is to get Bush out of the White House, and since this is an opinion piece mascarading as a fact based documentary, it is ok if he ignores or fudges a few little things. ;)

[ 07-09-2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]