Michael Moore's Farenheit 911 is official Cannes Selection

Emma, I'm sorry for assuming you were American. I jumped to a conclusion I shouldn't have jumped to. You are right in saying that plenty of liberals hate Michael Moore. I myself, who have worked with him, personally can't stand the bastard. He's not a nice man and treats many of those he works with disdainfully. That said, my point merely was that calling him a liar is a tactic that far too many people on the right invoke in an attempt to attack his politics. The fact remains that Moore is absolutely correct with the statistics he offers in the film. And at the end of the day, his only absolute thesis is that this country suffers at the hand of a "fear and hate" industry which cajoles it's citizens into shooting first and asking questions later. I don't think anybody would disagree with this. Just turn on the local news if you need proof. Believe me, I'm looking for reasons to hate this man on as many levels as possible, but I can't attack him for the points he makes in the film, because, like him or not, they are sound.
 
But that isn't what the film portrayed.

It suggested that these factory workers were actively involved in weapons manufacture.

Its just as bad as the Daily Mirror's feeble excuse that the pictures accurately portrayed events that happend in Iraq. They were still fakes.

Moore still believes the end justifies the means and that is never right.
 
Michael Moore is the only American I have ever seen who will honestly look into the American pysche. I have a friend in the US who went out and bought another 2 guns after 9/11....he already owns 3.

His excuse is that it makes him feel safer now....from terrorists.

.....just in case he is ever on the 84th floor of a skyscraper, and a 767 is inbound at 500mph, the extra guns will obviously save the day.

This is just the kind of minRABet that Moore recognises and confronts. You can't knock him for that.

Proberly the next one will be about how they treat other members of humanity under their care and protection, like in Iraq. But hey, the US does not behave like that right? Yeah right!
 
exactly - there's no much anti moore stuff on the net now, that you can read it, and then just say something elsewhere like that, ie Michael Moore just makes everything up.

a bit of research and it turns out that a lot of the stuff people accuse moore of is actually wrong. and a lot of it spills over into personal criticism, or just twists things round against him.

my favourite example of this was the criticism levelled at him for using actual figures for gun related murders in different countries, rather than figures per population in BFC. the impression being that he did this to disguise the fact that such crime isn't really any worse in the US than it is elsewhere.

there are around 11,000 gun related murders in the US each year, and around 70 in the UK. *well that doesn't mean anything* people said. *there are a lot more people in the US*

of course, that argument is bogus, because there aren't that many more people in the US.

he might put spin on things, and he might present them in his own style, but that doesn't mean the points aren't valid.

Iain
 
He didn't. He combined images from an official Bush campaign ad with images from a PAC ad, sponsored by Republican allies of Bush, and later admitted to be have been coordinated by Lee Atwater with the Bush campaign.
 
No

Neither did Michael Moore. He was making the point that the plant next to Columbine did.

Which it wasn't.

By your definition every American soldier is evil because some indulge in obscene exploitation of prisioners.
 
I am totally with Pontus on this one. I never for once believe everything I am told, blame years of studying the Media and eventually teaching it. I always advise my students to view everything with both eyes open, that everyone has their own agenda, and of course Michael Moore does. I, for one, have no objection to anyone exposing the Bush family, the Bin Ladens or Charlton Heston for who they really are, and if you have any proof that anything in Bowling for Columbine is made up, then please share. It would be very useful for my class.
 
No Emma, I feel that Moore was right in going after him. If for no other reason, to show that ancient movie stars are not necessarily the right people to tote the policy for an entire lobby. Moore discredited a glitsy Hollywood Spokesperson, and rightly so in my opinion.
 
I am sorry that I presenting such hard logic, I shall try to express myself in a simpler fashion next time....sorry.

I understand now that your arguments in this debate is not made by ill will on your part, and so I must apologize for my behavior so far.

But to help you along I will offer the advice to try to find out WHY people say what they do (called "finding their agenda"), before you evaluate what they say... ok?
 
Moore inserted "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." into the ad, using a text style nearly identical to the ad's original captions. A casual viewer would assume that the text was part of the original ad.

Of course Willie Norton did not kill again, but actually raped a woman. Something Moore Moore has acknowledged, as the altered text in the DVD version now reaRAB "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman."

Sloppy & deceptive.
 
I agree that it's great to use ones own head....

So... what makes everything David T. Hardy says so believeable?
What possible motivation could David T. Hardy have to slander Michael Moore. Why doesn't David T. Hardy document his claims?

I wouldn't ask you to believe Michael Moore, but one thing is certain, there any meny powerful people that wants to discredit him any way possible, or what do YOU think?

And after all, calling somebody "disingenuous fat git" is very symbolic for the level of critizism you seem to be at.

Why do you find him so threatening, or should I ask, WHO are you here for?
 
Sorry, I didn't "define" anything, I simply asked you a question.
Maybe you will get it right next time, before you accuse me of defining anything, ok?

So, who told you that the factory in question does not make WMD?
 
All film is a construction of reality. There's always going to be a 'spin' on it - welcome to the world of media :D :) ;)

Oh - must tell you this one:

A while back I came across some South Park Message board and got to reading a post about Moore's books and films; everyone was happy to congratulate him until some cheeky fella decided to post a link to a website highlighting Moore's 'evil ways' (won't name it - it doesn't need the publicity ;) ).
Everyone - almost instantly decided to change their mind - Moore was now an @$$ apparently. I decided to visit the site - it looked pretty propaganda heavy so I investigated further. I started with a simple domain lookup (WHOIS), but came across a brick wall... registered via another company. However, on the same site there was another, more in-depth, search; this revealled the name of a US department agency. A Google search on the name revealed that the department was set up by the US government and the oil industry. One word for you there - hmm... Oh, and the company's name is now hidden behind Proxy, Inc. too - double hmm...

P.S - Moore isn't credited with editing the film - that award belongs to
Kurt Engfehr apparently...
 
Oh geee... there's very little left of your initial attack. With a little good will you will see that it's noe even a straw left.

But for ever it's worth, the facts should still be recorded, if they in fact are facts...
 
NO! That is what YOU are doing! Right here!

I guess everybody in here knows by now that you are paid to seek up forums and slander Michael Moore. We know about all the right-wing use-the-media manuals, that tells you guys where to go and what to say, and how often to repeat. Yes, and we all know that many people are paid to do this exact thing that you are doing here.

Mask is off, time for you to leave now.
 
Back
Top