Farenheit 9/11

[redfarmer]

I'm quite suprised that I'm the first person to bring this up but: if you've seen Farenheit 9/11 what did you think? What affect, if any, do you think it will have on the election? Do you feel Michael Moore was justified in his accusations against the Bush family and their close friends?

What really suprised me is that Kerry supporters were lined up at the theater in my city taking advantage of the opportunity to rally for Kerry.

[DPW]

I don't think an Objectivist who knows anything about Michael Moore or about that film can justify (or endure!) paying to see it. I wouldn't expect, therefore, much of a discussion about it here.

[Areactor]

I don't think an Objectivist who knows anything about Michael Moore or about that film can justify (or endure!) paying to see it.  I wouldn't expect, therefore, much of a discussion about it here.

Moore, being the supporter of file sharing...

Well, lets just say if I do plan on seeing it, I'm not paying for it. I want to honor the filmmaker's wishes.

[Charles T.]

I heard a fellow on the radio say he bought a ticket for a different movie and "accidentally" went into the theater where F9/11 was playing. Good way to avoid giving your money to Moore, I must say.

From the previews and reviews I've seen, it's glaringly clear that the film does not remotely resemble a "documentary", yet that is what it is being called, and I'm sure that's the award it will win at next year's Oscars: Best Documentary. What a big joke it is. With Moore laughing all the way to the bank, I'm sure.

[danielshrugged]

Again, stealing from immoral people is still stealing.

[Areactor]

Again, stealing from immoral people is still stealing.

I understand that Daniel (Assuming you were directing your post to me), it was actually in the context of a joke, but I also understand that Michael Moore "gave people the permission to steal his movie."

[Areactor]

The movie isn't a documentary, it's pretty much a video editorial or video proproganda.

I don't understand why people, groups, etc, are calling the movie a documentary myself.

[WGD]

How about the movie about Michael Moore.

www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com

[jedymastyr]

I really want to go see it, because it would be very amusing--but more importantly I don't want my money going to support him. So of course I won't. But as for the people that fall "victim" to this...all I can say is that they deserve it. It is very obvious when he "bends" the truth.

[redfarmer]

It is very obvious when he "bends" the truth.

Not necessarily. I did see the movie and, with a few exceptions, I found his arguments very integrated and the flaws not so obvious. The fact, too, that his opponents so far have virtually ignored the movie sends a message that Moore is right by default, whether he was or not. Keep in mind that 90% or more of the people who saw the movie probably aren't rational and won't go home to check out the arguments on their own.

[DPW]

Not necessarily. I did see the movie and, with a few exceptions, I found his arguments very integrated and the flaws not so obvious.

Then you weren't paying attention. According to Hitchens anyway.

The fact, too, that his opponents so far have virtually ignored the movie sends a message that Moore is right by default, whether he was or not.

On the contrary: in most cases, one should not respond to garbage of this nature. In doing so, one gives it a sanction it does not deserve.

[redfarmer]

I don't think an Objectivist who knows anything about Michael Moore or about that film can justify (or endure!) paying to see it.  I wouldn't expect, therefore, much of a discussion about it here.

Are there any essays/resources I could find and read? I'll admit that I'm probably a bit biased subconsciously since, before discovering Rand, I was a self admitted liberal and thought Bowling For Columbine was one of the best movies I'd seen at the time. In other words, I probably still have a lot of thinking to do.

[DPW]

Are there any essays/resources I could find and read? I'll admit that I'm probably a bit biased subconsciously since, before discovering Rand, I was a self admitted liberal and thought Bowling For Columbine was one of the best movies I'd seen at the time. In other words, I probably still have a lot of thinking to do.

Don't worry - it's no sin. Here are some sites you might find helpful:

Moore Lies - The Blog

Spinsanity: Michael Moore

Bowling for Truth

[Areactor]

Don't worry - it's no sin.  Here are some sites you might find helpful:

Moore Lies - The Blog

Spinsanity: Michael Moore

Bowling for Truth

DPW

Because of your avatar, I picture a person on the brink of rage as I read your post.

[BlackSabbath]

As pointed out earlier, Christopher Hitchens doesn't miss and hit the wall:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=13891

We have been discussing this at:

http://s7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...=184&st=0last

We have agreed that Michael Moore is fat.

Also, I think that most people who want to go and see this hate Bush anyway and will just see what they want to see and ignore the contradictions that Hitchens points out.

[DPW]

DPW

Because of your avatar, I picture a person on the brink of rage as I read your post. 

That's funny. Because of yours, I picture you as invisible.

[Areactor]

That's funny.  Because of yours, I picture you as invisible.   

Yeah. I never took the time to make an avatar. I really need to one day.

[Elle]

I saw it. One of my more liberal acquaintances bid me join him and his friend. His friend's wife is the head of the "Wake up Kitsap" activist group. Go figure.

It was laughable, how easily people will eat up anything that they can remotely connect as "truth". I know it gets old drawing parallels between Rand fiction, and the real world, but I couldn't help but see Moore as Toohey and my two accquaintances as fellow Peter Keatings looking up in awe.

Just wait until "The Corporation" comes out. Disgusting.

[Bryan]

I know it gets old drawing parallels between Rand fiction, and the real world, but I couldn't help but see Moore as Toohey

I made that exact same observation about Moore.

Here is a deconstruction of Bowling for Columbine for anyone who is interested.

Truth about Bowling for Columbine

As a graduate of the same school district that Columbine is located in, I was especially frustrated by the lies in that film. I have no intention of seeing this new movie, if I do I certainly won't being paying for it.

[ex_banana-eater]

Just wait until "The Corporation" comes out.  Disgusting.

Sorry for going off topic:

I remember they filmed "The Corporation" in my town, and it had a few select showings which I tried to see because I was a furious semi-socialist at the time. As far as I know, the film goes through the World Health Organizations checklist of what constitutes an insane person, and since corporations have the legal rights of a person, they deem corporations mentally insane by the actions in the movie.

You can thank Canada for both The Corporation, and Lions Gate Films in Vancouver for Farenheit 9/11. It is interesting to note that Lions Gate Films is a state-funded/subsidized movie company.

[Who_Is_GV?]

When I first heard of F-9/11, I immediately thought of AR's statement that art must be "an end in itself." This piece is most certainly the means to an end (or ends). It's analogous to the difference between a painting of a man versus the painting of a man on a red poster stamped CCCP.

--George

[jedymastyr]

When I first heard of F-9/11, I immediately thought of AR's statement that art must be "an end in itself."  This piece is most certainly the means to an end (or ends).  It's analogous to the difference between a painting of a man versus the painting of a man on a red poster stamped CCCP.

While I would love to have more reasons to dislike F-9/11, I must disagree with this.

First of all, it is [supposed to be] a documentary, and the purpose of a documentary is to provide information--the primary purpose isn't to be a work of art.

In addition, _The_Fountainhead_ and _Atlas_Shrugged_ had definite messages, though admittedly presented through dramatization more than explication. While these weren't only political, _We_the_Living_ certainly was moreso. I think it would be reasonable for a novelist to write a good story while still conveying an important political message.

[Who_Is_GV?]

In addition, _The_Fountainhead_ and _Atlas_Shrugged_ had definite messages, though admittedly presented through dramatization more than explication.  While these weren't only political, _We_the_Living_ certainly was moreso.  I think it would be reasonable for a novelist to write a good story while still conveying an important political message.

Have you read Ayn Rand's Romantic Manifesto, or, more specifically, "The Goal of My Writing?" It appears to me that you have not. If you have, I am interested to know why you would phrase the purpose of her novels so differently than she.

[Spearmint]

I don't think an Objectivist who knows anything about Michael Moore or about that film can justify (or endure!) paying to see it.  I wouldn't expect, therefore, much of a discussion about it here.

Isn't this just like me saying that listening to Linkin Park would involve me sanctioning objectively bad music which would dilute my musical purity, therefore I will never listen to a single one of their songs but will instead snidely call them evil on the internet for promoting malevont views (despite actually not having experience of what they were saying)?

How can you possibly claim that a film is bad without actually watching it?

edit: I've never read any of Moore's novels, but I wached Bowling for Columbine. The most interesting thing regarding it was how those claiming to represent the cliched 'right wing' hit out at it in a reactionary manner because they felt it was somehow attacking things they believed in without being able to quite define how. Yes it was a fairly bad movie, but most criticism of it seemed to be even less intellectual than the points raised within the film itself. I'm not sure what basis you could use to claim that Michael Moore is worse than someone like Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, who seem to advocate the same kind of anti-intellectuallism, but from a conservate perspective.

[Nate_S]

Bush’s shameful ‘faith-based’ initiatives and subtle yet insistent coercion between the church and state have marred the philosophical connotations of this war and consequently the resolve of our international policy allowing Moores special breed of quasi-intellectual liberalism to surge through the populous like a spiritually numbing cancer. However one such Moore-ism is particularly frightening to me:

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win."

Is it just me or did he just draw a parallel between those who fought under the noble and intellectually cultured pretences of individual freedom with the brutally barbaric mysticism of Iraqi terrorists? Is this truly the character and mechanics of his political resolve? Its as if Moore has successfully skewed the perspectives of hundreds of thousands if not millions (I hope for the latter) of people in such a manner that they have acquired a total disregard for the character and intellect of our nations founding fathers and the philosophical pretences of the freedoms they take for granted every second of every day of their lives.