Fahrenheit 911 Trailer online now

  • Thread starter Thread starter check
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Trailer
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the film "Fahrenheit 911," its trailer release, and participants' reactions to Michael Moore's filmmaking style and content. The scope includes critiques of Moore's previous work, particularly "Bowling for Columbine," and the perceived biases in his documentaries.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the cinematic merit of "Fahrenheit 911," suggesting it may be more politically motivated than artistically valuable.
  • Others indicate a reluctance to view the film due to concerns about its propagandistic nature, referencing their experiences with "Bowling for Columbine."
  • Several participants critique Moore's approach to interviews, particularly his "ambush journalism," arguing that it misrepresents individuals and oversimplifies complex issues.
  • There are mixed feelings about the effectiveness of Moore's films as documentaries, with some suggesting they are more entertainment than factual representations.
  • Some participants appreciate the film's exploration of gun violence in the U.S. but note that it fails to provide comprehensive answers to the underlying issues.
  • Concerns are raised about the public's perception of the film as an informative source, with some believing it overshadows more factual accounts from the 9/11 Commission.
  • Participants discuss the subjective nature of the film, highlighting its emotional impact and audience reactions, including applause at screenings.
  • Critiques of Moore's personal life and perceived hypocrisy regarding his children's education are also mentioned.
  • There are humorous and exaggerated comments regarding gun culture and masculinity, reflecting a mix of serious critique and satire.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement on the value and integrity of Moore's work, with multiple competing views on the appropriateness of his methods and the implications of his messages. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the overall impact and classification of his films.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in Moore's portrayal of complex social issues, including the lack of discussion on positive developments in Iraq post-war. There is also a recognition of the subjective nature of the film's narrative.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in film critique, documentary filmmaking, media representation, and political commentary may find this discussion relevant.

check
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Just thought I'd let you guys know it's up now, for those of you who care. http://www.fahrenheit911.com/trailer/
Anyone planning on seeing it? Considering it won the Palme D'Or in Cannes (though probably more for politcal reasons than for cinematic achievment) it should be good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I might see it eventually, but likely not, for fear I might take my frustrations out on the screen. Bowling for Columbine was bad enough. I'm just not too big on propagandist's works.
 
The only thing that really bugged me about Bowling For Columbine was Mike's ambush on Dick Clark. I don't think Dick was personally responsible for the welfare for work program, yet Mike tried to make him out to be the bad guy. Other than that, I think it was well done.
 
The only thing that I thought was good about that movie was about how the media, especially the news media, relies on fear mongering.
 
check said:
The only thing that really bugged me about Bowling For Columbine was Mike's ambush on Dick Clark. I don't think Dick was personally responsible for the welfare for work program, yet Mike tried to make him out to be the bad guy. Other than that, I think it was well done.

I didn't personally like all the lying and speech editing...but I guess I expect accuracy in my documentaries.
 
Calling Moore's films "documentaries" is stretching the term a little.
 
Yeah they are more of... entertainment packaged to look like a documentary. I don't watch them expecting a true genuine documentary.
 
check said:
The only thing that really bugged me about Bowling For Columbine was Mike's ambush on Dick Clark. I don't think Dick was personally responsible for the welfare for work program, yet Mike tried to make him out to be the bad guy.
The same for that NRA boss/actor whose name I forgot. I mean, whether you like that man or not (I don't), you can't just blame him for something he has no responsability at all. And Moore de facto did that, he almost presented him as the murderer of the little girl.

Moore criticizes the society for its simplifying view of things, for its search for bad guys like Marilyn Manson. But in the end, he does exactly the same thing. Even Marilyn Manson himself was unhappy about this after the movie was finished.
 
kuengb said:
The same for that NRA boss/actor whose name I forgot. I mean, whether you like that man or not (I don't), you can't just blame him for something he has no responsability at all. And Moore de facto did that, he almost presented him as the murderer of the little girl.

Yeah, I guess I agree with that too. I’m not a big fan of “ambush journalism” except for its entertainment value. I don’t think the point of Moore’s interview with Charlton Heston was to solely blame him for school shootings and gun crime. However, I do believe Mike went into the interview wanting to make Heston look like the bad guy by making it out to seem like his visits to pro gun rallies in Colorado and Michigan after school shootings was almost on purpose to taunt the families of the victims. Of course this isn’t true, though personally I don’t think having those rallies soon after the shootings was appropriate.

I think the most interesting thing about that film (to me anyway) was the comparison it made of gun violence in the United States versus the rest of the world. In the end, however, it didn’t really answer the question of why America had so many gun murders though it did allude to several possible reasons.

I guess in the end I still think it’s a good movie and very entertaining. As far as documentaries though…I would never cite it as a source.
 
  • #10
If I'm correct, Michael Moore's kids goes to a private school in the Upper East side in the city. They should go to a public school! :)
 
Last edited:
  • #11
The only thing I'm certain of with Moore is his ASSpiration for greatness. It has no bounds.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
I saw the movie, I guess it's pretty good for movie/entertainment purposes. Also noted that it did very well in the box office, Michael Moore is a richer man now! I don't know how it is like in any other country other than the US, but sadly I think the majority of the American who saw the movie thinks that the movie is very informative. I bet they believe the movie more than the 911 commission ! That's a sad thing about America... I saw horrific images of the war in Iraq in the movie; but he didn't show or talked about how life in Iraq are changing since the war, like how many school are built, how many bridges and buildings are rebuilt and how the Iraqis are enjoying their freedom eapecially through demonstration at least... The movie is very subjective!
 
  • #13
I also saw the movie. First movie I’ve ever been too when people gave a loud, enthusiastic applause at the end.

Anyway, I very much enjoyed the film. Moore makes no secret that it is a biased film. But I do agree that it’s sad many people will cite this movie as a source for reasons against going to war with Iraq or not voting for bush when the 9/11 Commission hearings and prisoner abuse hearings are far more interesting, must less biased, more factual and have been staring them in the face for months!
 
  • #14
Moore is full of himself. I agree that hand guns are unnessisary in America but I don't think we need to lie to show people the truth. The only other thing I liked about the movie was his harassment on Charlton Heston and those NRA nut bags. You've gota have some nerve holding an NRA rallies in Columbine right after the incident.

All those redneck gun freaks thinking guns make them tough. Thinking there idel Heston is a real man's man. Oh yeah, you're really tough shooting a 1000 lbs grizzle with a high powered assult rifle at 300 yards. A real man would walk up close to the bear and pelt him with rocks to piss him off, then grab a spear and battle it for a while then impale the mother. Like in that movie "The Edge". Then skin it, eat it, and make cloths out of it all with just a rusty knife. And if you were a man's man you'd do it all with your bare hands, naked, in the tunda!

What? :rolleyes:
 
  • #15
Better to have spin and slander at the movie theaters than from your fair and balanced news station, day after day.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K