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
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.
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.
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.
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.
How can you possibly claim that a film is bad without actually watching it?
How can you possibly claim that Australia exists without actually going there and seeing it for yourself?
Not everything requires your own first hand observation for you to know something about it, which in any case would be impossible. I’ve not been to the former WTC site, but I believe it’s an absolute certainty that the WTC no longer exists.
I suppose it’s possible that even it’s supporters - who acknowledge it is blatantly slanted propaganda - might even be wrong about it. But how likely is that? I suppose it’s possible that the dozens of reports about it, which include factual descriptions of its content, might all be false. If that were the case, I wonder then why even Moore and his supporters don’t deny them.
This btw is the best review of it I’ve read, the best epistemologically, i.e. the one that most fundamentally names what is wrong with the illogical way that Moore thinks - and, I might add, much of the left these days. Not surprisingly it was written by Mark Steyn:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn04.html
Fred Weiss
Is it just me or did [Moore] 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?
Yes! 
But then Michael Moore and his fans live in an alternate universe.
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.
The perspectives of people who believe Michael Moore were already skewed up and screwed up long before they saw his movie and he just took them farther from reality. He didn’t persuade people with any common sense which, thankfully, are most Americans.
I think this will backfire on the Left. If Moore is associated with Kerry, it will kill Kerry with the more sensible Democrats. If Moore is associated with Nader or the Greens, it will draw the crazy Lefties away from Kerry. The only thing Moore can do to hurt Bush now is to become a Republican. :yarr:
I think this will backfire on the Left. If Moore is associated with Kerry, it will kill Kerry with the more sensible Democrats. If Moore is associated with Nader or the Greens, it will draw the crazy Lefties away from Kerry. The only thing Moore can do to hurt Bush now is to become a Republican. :lol:
I think you may be right on this.
I think Betsy would agree that Moore has fulfilled his stated intent in producing the movie: influencing the election. Betsy?
I just saw the movie today. It is a politically based movie and is thus biased. But to what extent did Moore’s political views distort the facts? I thought it wasnt a horrible smear tactic like some think. It was overly emotional, it portrayed Bush in a poor manner, and it used violence to grab the watchers sympathy. But it had some truth to it. Bush did the things that were portrayed in the movies. The people who spoke poorly of Bush in interviews did so because that was their OPINION. Moore didnt script their responses. Moore is entitled to make any movie he chooses. And if people see it, then he has the money and the financial backing to make another one later. Thats capitalism. I am not a Bush fan, so I am not horribly offended by it. It doesnt make Republicans look bad, only Bush. It wasnt a fair movie, but how many movies portray things as they actually happen?
I just saw the movie today. It is a politically based movie and is thus biased. But to what extent did Moore’s political views distort the facts? I thought it wasnt a horrible smear tactic like some think. It was overly emotional, it portrayed Bush in a poor manner, and it used violence to grab the watchers sympathy. But it had some truth to it. Bush did the things that were portrayed in the movies. The people who spoke poorly of Bush in interviews did so because that was their OPINION. Moore didnt script their responses. Moore is entitled to make any movie he chooses. And if people see it, then he has the money and the financial backing to make another one later. Thats capitalism. I am not a Bush fan, so I am not horribly offended by it. It doesnt make Republicans look bad, only Bush. It wasnt a fair movie, but how many movies portray things as they actually happen?
Why are you so defensive there? It’s not like anyone here is advocating the banning of that movie by law, or that the government should stop him from making another.
No one in here is “Bush fan”. It’s not the portrayal of Bush that irks people in here–it’s the lies that permeat the movie.
BTW, the movie is a distortion and a smear. You don’t seem to have read any of the intelligent, coherent reviews that point them out, have you?
BTW, the movie is a distortion and a smear. You don’t seem to have read any of the intelligent, coherent reviews that point them out, have you?
How is it different from any other movie? I dont know too many factual movies. I watched it for recreation, not for political purposes. Anyone who lets a 2 hour movie dictate their political views is just plain weird. I just think that a “review” of the movie, is giving it too much credit. I dont read the reviews for movies like Spiderman 2 or the Terminal and i dont plan on doing so with Moore’s movie either.
It’s different because it claims to be a documentary, i.e. journalism, i.e. a report of the truth. But Moore’s films are notorious for their misrepresentation of fact. A google search will turn up oodles of pages dedicated to showing how Moore twists things, using quotes out of context, making mountains out of molehills, and using a bunch of disintegrated facts to create conspiracy theories by coy implication. When backed into a corner, he has claimed that his movies don’t have to tell the truth consistently because they’re “comedy”; and yet, he was more than willing to accept an award for best documentary of the year for Bowling for Columbine.
If Moore were merely on the level of Al Franken, who makes it fairly clear when he’s bullshitting his reader, I don’t think he’d be criticized as harshly on here as he has been. But he doesn’t; he’s duplicitous. So he deserves every insult which has been thrown at him and then some.
I think Betsy would agree that Moore has fulfilled his stated intent in producing the movie: influencing the election. Betsy?
That may have been an unintended consequence. :lol:
Here is another look at Michael Moore noting his popularity with terrorists:
There are two H’s in Fahrenheit.
I saw the movie with my conservative family; they wanted to poke holes in its arguments, so I tagged along. It occasionally makes a good point - including drawing attention to the Bush administration’s pathetic attempt at war in Afghanistan, which didn’t ruthlessly eliminate the Taliban and local al-Queda, but instead pussyfooted around and allowed many of our enemies to escape - then botches that point, by making a contradictory statement - in this case, suggesting that Bush failed in Afghanistan because all he cared about was building a gas pipeline, not fighting al-Queda, and that the attack was immoral. The movie has no integrated thesis or argument, it’s just “everything Bush has done is bad, including things that contradict each other.” I’m no Bush fan, but I can’t understand Moore’s irrational hatred for the man. Why must he endeavour to prove that the man’s every action is evil, when that clearly is not the case?
*breathes a huge sigh of relief*
It’s nice to know there are still sane people in this world. There are a couple other forums I visit and I enjoy arguing with them to an extent but it loses it’s fun after a while and becomes frustrating (they can’t see a proof when you explain it 10 different ways). It’s nice to come here and see that some people actually know how to live.
There are some on the board who say that Michael Moore is a Toohey. I disagree. Moore doesn’t have the brains to be a Toohey. I think he is closer to Bertram Scudder, a character from Atlas. He is the hack who wrote “The Octopus,” a tirade against business in general, using Rearden as his justification for the Equalization of Opportunity Bill.
QUOTE:
“[Readen] saw the article, “The Octopus,” by Bertram Scudder, which was not an expression of ideas, but a bucket of slime emptied in public – an article that did not contain a single fact, not even an invented one, but poured a stream of sneers and adjectivies in which nothing was clear except the filthy malice of denouncing without considering proof necessary.”
(PB edition of Atlas Shrugged, p. 139)
UNQUOTE
There are some on the board who say that Michael Moore is a Toohey. I disagree. Moore doesn’t have the brains to be a Toohey. I think he is closer to Bertram Scudder, a character from Atlas. He is the hack who wrote “The Octopus,” a tirade against business in general, using Rearden as his justification for the Equalization of Opportunity Bill.
QUOTE:
“[Readen] saw the article, “The Octopus,” by Bertram Scudder, which was not an expression of ideas, but a bucket of slime emptied in public – an article that did not contain a single fact, not even an invented one, but poured a stream of sneers and adjectivies in which nothing was clear except the filthy malice of denouncing without considering proof necessary.”
(PB edition of Atlas Shrugged, p. 139)
UNQUOTE
You’ve pinned the tails on the donkey Oldsalt! 
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.
If you havn’t seen the movie then you cannot in all honesty give opinions about it.