Patrick M wrote:Does Hitchens like anyone? Anything?
Does the sound of his own voice count?
Ryan
Fahrenheit 9/11 coming 6/25
Rspaight wrote:Anyway, you want your semi-legitimate anti-Moore talking points, here ya go. I don't agree with everything in here by a long shot (if I have time at some point I might refute some things), but it's a pretty good summation of the case against the movie.
There a whole thread about this at WCF.
Of the responses so far, this is my favorite, from "fatcat."
You know that its bad when a fellow lib blasts Moore's integrity. Hitchens, of Slate and formerly of the ultra-liberal Nation Magazine, is no fan of the Bush Administration. For Hitchens to defend Bush, Moore's work most be pure fiction.
That's right, Christopher Hitchens is a "lib." And that is why he wrote this flattering book about Bill Clinton:
I suppose that also explains why he wrote this pro-Iraq invasion book as well:
Honestly, is this how conservatives "think"?
"<Person A> has written a/an <editorial/article/polemic> which appeared in <assumed to be liberal website/newspaper/magazine>.
Therefore, <person A> is a liberal."
Rspaight wrote:Patrick M wrote:Does Hitchens like anyone? Anything?
Does the sound of his own voice count?
Ryan
Guys, this is weak. Any 'pundit' from here to the late Alistair Cooke could be accused of liking 'the sound of his own voice'. If you don't know anything about Hitchens and what he 'likes' , go look his work up. It's not lilke he's an obscure figure.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant
Honestly, is this how conservatives "think"?
"<Person A> has written a/an <editorial/article/polemic> which appeared in <assumed to be liberal website/newspaper/magazine>.
Therefore, <person A> is a liberal."
Then again, you seem to be arguing that someone who loathes Clinton and was pro-Iraq-war *can't* be liberal. (He loathes Reagan too, btw: http://slate.msn.com/id/2101842/)
Hitchens' ideological journey from card-carrying 'Euroleftie' to something of a porcupine that neither side is safe to embrace, is well-documented. Anyone who is hated by extremes on both sides has to have something going for him.
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
krabapple wrote:Rspaight wrote:Patrick M wrote:Does Hitchens like anyone? Anything?
Does the sound of his own voice count?
Ryan
Guys, this is weak. Any 'pundit' from here to the late Alistair Cooke could be accused of liking 'the sound of his own voice'. If you don't know anything about Hitchens and what he 'likes' , go look his work up. It's not lilke he's an obscure figure.
That was a joke. (You can't tell me that Hitchens doesn't love his Roget's.)
I posted the article because it was thought-provoking and made some good points. A few observations:
- I think Hitchens is wrong on the Iraq war, but I guess that's obvious by now. I tend to agree with Moore (or, more accurately, Clarke) that Iraq is a distraction from and aggravator of the war on terror, though Hitchens is correct to call out Moore's convenient evolution of thought on the need to get Osama.
- The salient point about the Saudi/Bush relationship and the Saudi/US relationship isn't that they failed to prevent us from overhrowing the Taliban, it's that we've made no serious moves to hold them accountable for their ties to terror in the same way we've pursued Afghanistan and Iraq, and instead continue to coddle them. In fact, according to Woodward's book, Bandar was briefed on the Iraq invasion strategy when it was still considered not for foreign eyes, and before Powell had even seen most of the material.
- If Hitchens' description of the film's treatment of Clarke is accurate, then harping on the Saudi flights that Clarke approved is indeed hypocritical. (The Saudi flights are still a legitmate issue, though, whether or not the commission gave them their stamp of approval.)
- Bush has indeed taken more and longer vacations than any President in recent memory. This is a legitimate gripe for someone who calls themselves a "war president" and expects soldiers to accept endless tour-of-duty extensions.
- The "happy children flying kites" stuff is indeed pathetic -- the prewar situation in Iraq was far more complicated than that, and if that's how the movie sets it up, it's a disservice to the truth. Likewise, the bit about Saddam never attacking, killing or threatening Americans is indeed a ludicrous overstatement. It's true to say that Saddam was never directly involved in any terror attacks against the US (though he did indeed harbor known terrorists and financially encouraged attacks on Israel), but what Hitchens quotes Moore as saying is patently false.
- Hitchens' criticism of Moore's counterterrorism spiel is justified. If this description of the film is accurate, Moore has missed the point, which is the question of what practical effect all this "security" has versus its psychological implications and the legal precedents it sets.
But this is what resonated for me in this piece:
But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (…), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.
That's the best criticism of Moore there is. He's truly the left's Rush Limbaugh, and just because I agree with what he says much of the time doesn't make him any less of a clown.
All that said, I'll go see the movie anyway because I want to see what's in it. (Hence all the "if what Hitchens says is accurate" disclaimers above.)
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
krabapple wrote:Then again, you seem to be arguing that someone who loathes Clinton and was pro-Iraq-war *can't* be liberal.
I would say that by virtue of disliking Clinton enough to write a book about it, and being in favor of the Iraq war enough to write a book about it, and disliking Michael Moore enough to make some of the statements he's made...Hitchens would not fit into the traditional paragon of a "liberal" as it is commonly bandied about.
I mean, I've seen no evidence that Hithcens want to eat babies, nor have sex with Cub Scouts.
-
lukpac
- Top Dog and Sellout
- Posts: 4592
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Contact:
I'd say Ebert hits the nail on the head:
'9/11': Just the facts?
June 18, 2004
BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC
A reader writes:
"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."
That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.
Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.
That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.
The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.
The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.
In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.
Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.
Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."
The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive.
Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.
I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems.
Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.
'9/11': Just the facts?
June 18, 2004
BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC
A reader writes:
"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."
That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.
Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.
That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.
The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.
The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.
In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.
Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.
Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."
The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive.
Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.
I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems.
Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD
lukpac wrote:He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.
Mabye he should have thought about that four years ago.
November 17, 2000
Blame Monica!
Dear friends,
For the past week I have suffered this unbearable guilt that I may have put George W. Bush in the White House. I thought back to the time I first met with Ralph Nader and, secretly, we hatched The Plot.
Our goal? To make this country suffer, suffer, SUFFER under George W. Bush! All we needed to do was convince just 300 people, preferably in a "swing state," to vote for Nader instead of Gore. Simple! Genius! That would put Bush in the White House and THAT would lead to mass revolution and THAT would lead to ... well, something. This stuff ALWAYS leads to something!
I told Ralph, though, that "running" and hanging out with "celebrities" would NOT be enough. So I was dispatched to secretly meet with Al Gore. Using my incredible powers of persuasion, I was the one who persuaded Gore to ignore not only his traditional Democratic base, but also his home state of Tennessee in the campaign. He agreed! I then got him to prevent Clinton from campaigning in Arkansas. He went along with this also -- and together those two states cost him 16 critical electoral votes!
So you can see why I have been convinced for the past week that it was me, all me, the one who is responsible for costing Gore the election.
That is, until I saw the official results from Florida, as confirmed by Secretary of State/Bush Campaign Chair Katherine Harris:
FLORIDA Presidential Results
Precincts Reporting:
100%
Al Gore, Dem
2,910,192
48.8%
George W. Bush, GOP
2,910,492
48.8%
Pat Buchanan, RP
17,472
0.3%
Ralph Nader, Grn
97,422
1.6%
Harry Browne, Lib
16,401
0.3%
John Hagelin, NLP
2,273
0%
James Harris, SWP
588
0%
David McReynolds, Soc
618
0%
Monica Moorehead, Workers World
1,805
0%
Howard Phillips, CST
1,370
0%
As I studied these results, I suddenly saw the true culprit, the one candidate responsible for putting Bush in the White House. And it was NOT Ralph Nader.
It was MONICA MOOREHEAD!
That's right. Monica Moorehead, Presidential Candidate of the Worker's World Party.
Ms. Moorehead received 1,805 votes in Florida, 1,500 more votes than what now separates Bush and Gore.
Had Monica not been on the ballot, it is safe to assume that at least 300 of her supporters would have voted for Al Gore. Exit polls confirm this fact. Al Gore was the second choice of over half of the Moorehead voters!
A vote for Monica was a vote for Bush.
The Worker's World Party is a socialist political organization that has been around for decades. They are the ones who always have the best-looking banners at any political demonstration (black italic lettering on a yellow-orange background). They are in favor of unions, a fair distribution of the wealth, and are pro-choice, pro-environment and pro-gay. You can see why, if they had nowhere else to go, Moorehead voters would have held their nose and voted for Gore.
And we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now!
I hold Monica Moorehead personally responsible for all the havoc a Bush presidency will wreak. If women are forced to return to back- alley coathanger abortions, it will be because of Monica. If the Alaskan wilderness is ravaged by corporate greed, it will be because of Monica. If we are unable to repel an attack of Martians, it will be because of Monica.
What kind of weird, sick ego filled this candidate, compelling her to run and do so much damage? Oh, I get it -- "principle!" She was running on "principle," not to actually WIN. Hey, get a clue, Monica -- this is the REAL world the rest of us live in. While you decided to have your ego party and travel the country with celebrities, the rest of us were trying to do something practical. Was it simply your greed to get matching federal funds in the next election? Was that what your candidacy was all about? Money for YOU? I read in Salon.com you live in a Park Ave. penthouse! And they are NEVER wrong!! So while you get rich in the next four years, selling your pamphlets on "The Dialectic of Political Reform in Socialist Romania 1951-1984," the rest of us will just have to suffer!
Well, I for one, will not let this drop. I encourage everyone to shun Monica Moorehead. If she enters a room, just leave. If she speaks to you, tell her that she is a "non-person" and then leave. When her name comes up in conversation, change the subject -- and then leave. If she comes on TV, switch the channel. If they put her name on a candy bar, don't eat it. If you find yourself in the same restaurant as her, don't order what she has ordered. And don't ever go back to that restaurant because you may end up drinking from the same glass she drank from!
Let us all make the name "Monica Moorehead" synonymous with EVIL. Do NOT return her calls. Delete her name from your Palm Pilot.
I have read some of Monica's latest comments in the past couple days as she has attacked the vote fraud in Florida. Hey, Monica -- you're a little late, aren't you? Where were you when you were helping Bush get elected? Why didn't you drop out of the race when you saw how close it was? All our lives we have respected you, and now you just went and blew it! Why should we listen to you from this point on? You say we should "take to the streets of West Palm Beach!" How the hell do you expect us to do that when we have to spend time writing you these angry letters?
I am announcing the formation of the "Blame Monica Movement." Heretofore, whenever anyone wants to know WHO is responsible for putting Bush in the White House, you just tell them, "IT WAS MONICA!"
Blame Monica!
Yours,
Michael Moore
http://www.theawfultruth.com/
http://www.michaelmoore.com/
mmflint@aol.com
P.S. This Saturday (tomorrow), November 18, may be the last chance to take to the streets to stop "The Bush Ballot Theft." Rallies and demonstrations are being held in cities all over the country at 1:00 PM. Click here to find out where.
Let's get thousands out there and make our voices heard. No matter which candidate each of us voted for, we must insist that the person with the most votes gets the job.
Remember -- if this kind of thievery can take place amongst the two corporate-controlled parties, just imagine what they would do to us if we ever got close with a viable third party! If they get away with this, they will be able to get away with anything. Take a stand on Saturday.
P.P.S. Tonight (Friday) on "The Awful Truth" (Bravo, 8pm and 11pm ET), we send our Congressional Pimp to walk the halls of Congress. Don't miss this lesson in democracy at work! Also, we present our salute to Male Apartheid!
-
Bennett Cerf
- Posts: 739
- Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 7:54 pm