Home / Reviews /
Michael Moore, George Bush: Fahrenheit 9/11
I own this:
0 users / add your name
by Toby Jarvis
As I write this, the BBC news is reporting that the Bush administration have warned the threat of terrorism may force them to find a legal way to delay the US Presidential elections. Nothing to do with desperation then. The juggernaut people-power success in the States of Michael Moore's documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11 must be truly terrifying if you're one of those oily scrotes currently running America. Despite your best efforts to suppress and slander the movie, freedom of speech (well, freedom to go to the pictures) has prevailed. $60 million at the US box office in three weeks and sold-out cinemas across Republican heartlands like Texas are a foghorn wake up call.
In fact F9/11 is a fairly conventional documentary, though stylishly compiled and injected with Moore's sense of the hip and the darkly comic. There are far fewer silly stunts than Bowling For Columbine and even Moore's narration seems quieter and angled downbeat. Also there's a linear narrative this time. Focus is sharper - obviously - because the target is specific. George Bush is the playboy fool. No words needed when you watch him mugging like Benny Hill at the camera, moments before announcing he's taken the US into war. Those around him, propping him up, his family, are shifty, money-drenched whores to the oil industry and the Carlyle Group. Some of the pandering to Saudi money is horrifying.
The mainstream US media, always in the pocket of the super-rich, have called this 'propaganda', as if every wardancing Fox News bulletin over the last eighteen months was pure objectivity. That these Ugly Rightists, in their smuggery, are subjecting this openly polemicising filmmaker to tougher scrutiny than their own government is embarrassing. Luckily, there's not a single duff fact in this movie - it's been meticulously checked and double-checked.
And it's enough, whatever you believe, to see - for the first time - American soldiers who've lost limbs during the occupation of Iraq, questioning why they were sent there. It's a patriotic, brave and moving segment that gives us possibly the most honest portrayal of bored and scared smalltown kids trying to police a hostile desert I've seen anywhere in the media.
Michael Moore was always going to follow Bowling For Columbine with something truly special. But it's a testament to his sincerity of purpose that Moore suppressed the showman's ego and removed most of himself and his kooky humour from the mix, presented instead a film built largely from saved footage and interviews.
If the Democrats can pull themselves together enough to take advantage of this powerful head start, we may well see the back of the awful Bush. And if so, Michael Moore will have made a real contribution. Please go and see Fahrenheit 9/11 and take a good look at the man Blair still follows to the ends of the earth.
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Although a follower of Michael Moore's view of the world and particularly his view on the Bush administration's (and friend) illigal war on Iraq, I find the film somewhat disjointed. The documentary itelf as opposed to the subject matter, has flaws. I don't buy the shots of Baghdad before the war, insinuating it to be a place at peace with itself. I don't like the way Moore's narrative puts words in Bush's head, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11 when he's told about it. The use of the Mother, which has been seen by the Right as exploitative, is overplayed toward the end. She is used too often to reenforce a point that doesn't need reenforcing. The film quite clearly IS propaganda to remove Bush. Michael Moore is unashamed in this. However, the positives to come from this far outway the negatives, Bush is exposed as the Bluechip-controlled, inept leader puppet we thought and the Republicans are shiting themselves. Now Mark Thomas, about that Tony Blair fella...-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
"The pursuit of anything resembling logic.... Not particularly in that order."
I got that from your profile.
Judging by your view on Moore, your pursuit is currently fruitless. That said, at least you had the good sense to admit that he does talk some shit. -
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
My thoughts exactly.
-
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
The thing with Michael Moore at the end of the day is, he's always going to be very forthright and determined in his films. He has to show a very clear line between right and wrong because that's what the US government and media do. Therefore, because in a sense he's fighting them on their own terms (propagandist). As a documentary, it's quite good. But as an attempt to save the world, perhaps, unrivalled. -
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I love the word 'scrote'. Scrote scrote scrote...
The weird thing about a political documentary film like this is that it's almost instantly dated. I'd almost rather they were made for TV because of that. I liked John Pilger's 'The New Rulers of The World' because it was a little more of a historical bigger picture, rather than just a single issue rant. Stupid White Men was very informative about one thing - the election, but once you've read it once that's it.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Did you know that you can rearrange the word Escort to say 'Scrote'? I noticed that whilst sitting in traffic behind an escort with some letters missing...the idea of sneaking around in the night rearranging people's escort's to say Scrote and them not noticing for a long time tickled me something crazy.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
i can't believe i just said Escort's. SHAME ON ME. Escorts. Fucking plural, not posessive innit.
-
-
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I'm off to see this tonight, so can't comment on the movie... but worth reminding folks is that most americans, even the ones you think are informed, don't even know who Bill Hicks is (seriously!) and they dont have the kinda Channel 4 news or revealing, critical news paper industry wot we've got in rule Britiannia.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Yeah but let's face it, Bill Hicks ain't really worth knowing about.
My opinion aside, yer right of course.
N.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Bill Hicks not worth knowing about - are you crazy?!?!
The man was a comedy genius and defined the whole angro-political comedy genre!-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Yeah, but he wasn't actually *funny* though.
I'm well aware that I'm probably the only person round here who thinks that, but I just don't geddit.
N.
-
-
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
true
but
most brits, similarly, won't & don't know who the fuck bill hicks is, was, did, or if he's even still alive.
ditto the C4 news - how many tune in every night? Regardless of the fact it's some of the very best around
just to prick any superiority bubble in that post... (fair point on the US/UK press matter tho). -
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
yeah, our newspapers have news in them and no tits on page 3.
In Americaer, Jordan does not qualify as news.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Yeah but Baseball does and what the fuck is that? I'll tell you. It's rounders, y'know, the game played exclusively by middle aged mum's who belong to churches.
That's your no1 sport, that is...-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
baseball is more of a sport than darts or bowls surely?
i cant say i know bill hicks.i might know/recognise him if i saw him,or some of his creations.but i dont know him offhand.
and if b.hs is a british legend(?) why should americans know about him? im sure most of us not from the usa coulnt name all the legendary u.s funny men/women.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Hicks was American! Very American.
When was the last time Bowls was given prominent reportage in the paper?
And theres no tits on page 3 of the papers i read. Must be buying the wrong one :(-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
ohok,that shows how much i know :/.
bowls is on tv,and ive seen it reported in broadsheet sports section.
granted it doesnt get massive coverage ,like glorified-rounders in the u.s.,but it still gets coverage.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
You buy a paper that doesn't have tits in it? What a waste of money! If you want to know whats going on, wtach the news on telly. It's on all the fucking time and bang up to date. Newspapers are for ogling tits (Sundays excepted).
Can you tell I'm from Essex?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Aye we might moan about Britain but it is better than America, particularly the middle American attitudes and mindsets that many Americans have.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
keep on rockin for the free world na na naaa na na naaaa na -
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Nah, Americas better.
Everythings cheaper there, cos of "imperialism" or something. i read that in a book i bought at the train station, or out of hmv.
And America could rule the world if it wanted cos tis big, but it cant be arsed. I wish i could live there. I could have my cheap oil, and then not worry about the old world. Although it does have old stuff, which is kinda cool. maybe it'd be alright for holidays. i hear they have mcdonald there anyway. its cheap and sometimes features local foods... -
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
i certainly hope you've actually been to middle america and encountered the "attitudes" and "mindsets" firsthand before making a comment like that.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Will you people shut the fuck up. Is slagging off America all you ever do? Alright, they've made their mistakes but who would you prefer to be holding all the cards? Russia again? China? You should thank your lucky fucking stars that the Yanks are in charge of this planet. Anyone else and we'd probably be enslaved Communists. Mmmmm, that would be nice. Gulags and Salt mines. Great...
-
-
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
The danger with this film is that Moore is held up as the way 'liberals' are by the right wing sections of American society. I loved TV Nation, Roger and Me is a great film but Moore's increasingly gone over to the other side, like he's the caped crusader against the Bushian classes. It's one thing to argue that Bush doesn't ever hold a debate with someone of a higher intelligence: the same can be said for Moore. it's easy to sit and make comment over footage of a leader but another to actually speak publicly and debate. Moore doesn't do that, it seems too easy and, let's face it, in the era of political spin and henchmen behind the scenes running things tighter than Francis Ford Coppola during Apocalypse Now, the actual style of Moore's work against some political TV sloganeering isn't that different.
I listen to this horseshit bandied about that Bush represents Middle America.. the fuck he does, Middle America doesn't have an oil background and an ex President for a father. 'Middle' suggests a point in between, an exact point. Well, the middle classes are slowly becoming poorer, any study of the rich-poor gap in Canada, the US and Britain will show you that. And c'mon, Bush desperate? At the height of war, way before Hussein had been captured, the fucker barely slipped below halfway in the opinion poll rating (not that opinion polls matter a toss in any real voting scenario). The recent federal elections in Canada saw an oily Liberal machine stay in power despite scandal running out of its pores like milk.
I haven't sen the film and I doubt I will for some time. It's interesting that despite everyone saying the press in the US is a virtual right-wing monopoly, the most insightful and thoughtfully critical (as opposed to idiot criticism where you just slate something without any thought) commentary on the film has come from Britain.
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Spot on!
(but im probably not gonna watch this, cos i fucking hate michael moore, and all the dumbed-down destructive bullshit that passes for left-wing press these days)
At one point, i thought since the democrats had Kerry as a candidate: Bush would almost certainly stay as president. But now im not so sure.
The really sick irony is: if they do get rid of Bush (as looks likely) it'll be because of two type main types of voters. Usual democrat voters, who are basically isolationists. (Or they at least dont want to see the results of american foreign policy on TV, and they dont want any military action). And young people who don't normally vote, who are going for the anything but Bush camp - the irony here being that they're only voting against him because of propaganda and celebrity endorsement on the "left".
If you're gonna do a satire, fair enough. but dont hype it into something revolutionary.
And if you're gonna be political, be political. Any twat can point out all the things wrong with government, when they're not offering any alternatives.
I hate Michael Moore. Dont go to see these film. He's got enough money. (and had enough mcdonalds. probably).
Oh, and I hate John Pilger too, just not quite as much.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
i love michael moore...hes like a lil munchkin you wanna pick up and cuddle and feed mini muffins to... -
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Actually, Democrats are usually more interventionist (and internationalist) and Republicans isolationists, Democrats traditionally carry the votes of the jewish lobby, and are traditionally the pro israeli party. Republicans have traditionally been more pro-Arab.
In many ways Bush's govt. is an aberration from Republican traditions, though the way their unilateralism in various trade negotiations and in the war itself is as expected. Someone postulated that Cheney,Wolfowitz etc. wanted to pick a war because if they insisted on US companies doing the reconstruction it would effectively boost US 'exports' and stimulate the economy, which is getting harder and harder to do without the politically untenable cost cutting measures which would be needed to make it more competitive. The fact that US taxpayers are paying for reconstruction makes it a kind of public spending Keynesian economics by the back door, and also provides a way for the administration to give US taxpayers money to their mates, like Halliburton etc.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
In recent history is a pro-Israel or pro-Arab position more isolationist or more interventionist than the other?
And Republicans as isolationists? Bush Snr. and Reagan? I dont think thats true... Although, i accept, the same goes for Clinton.
If you're talking longer-term (pre-cold war, pre-20th century) then both main parties were isolationist, werent they? (or, longer ago, either pro-british, or pro-french...)
What i really meant was the attitude of voters. My impression was that a lot of Democrat voters want out of Iraq. Get the Americans home. It's a bad situation, but its not our fault; we told you the war was wrong. we'll never be able to do anything to help that country, and its a long way away anyway. and being there makes no difference (or makes worse) the threat to our country.
On the more general isolationist point, while they might look to charities and specific lobby groups to influence things like aid abroad, i dont think Democrats expect the government to do more than impose token (to america) sanctions.
Are you saying, in general, you dont think Democrat voters dont feel like this? (sorry for all the questions, my minds been trying to grasp what you're saying and they're partly rhetorical... it's that last one i really want the answer to though)
Sidenote: I take your points about the economy; but if they really thought a war would have any significant affect on the economy as a whole, either by creating a multiplier effect through jobs in the arms industry, or by increased trade and investment opportunities, then they're more stupid than everyone thinks they are.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
"I take your points about the economy; but if they really thought a war would have any significant affect on the economy as a whole, either by creating a multiplier effect through jobs in the arms industry, or by increased trade and investment opportunities, then they're more stupid than everyone thinks they are."
I think its more likely to be the latter: opening up more markets abroad to help the trade deficit. Don't quote me on this I'm not an economist. Either way its not something likely to pay off in the near future. As far as I see it though, rather than directly exploiting Iraq according to American interest, the neo-conservatives are much more interested in restructuring Iraq along "free market" principles, i.e. selling it off to multinationals before the Iraqis can elect their own government to decide what they want to do. The current US administration are ultimately much more representative of corporate power than they are of "middle America" (whether they realise it directly or not). That's what "America" has become: a corporate machine, disguised as a nationalist cult (to please the Republicans), disguised as a liberal democracy, whatever that is (to please the Democrats). -
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Democrat voters are much more likely to want troops out of Iraq, and much mor likely to be anti-watr
By isolationist I meant anti-UN and thinking in a little-american (can I use that in the same way as 'little-england'?) nationalistic way about often complex international issues.
-
-
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
>>>>I hate Michael MooreOh, and I hate John Pilger too, just not quite as much.
Who do you like?-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Louis Theroux!!!!!
-
-
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
"Bush represents Middle America...the fuck he does"
Sure he does! You don't have to be anything at all like someone to 'represent' them: take robin hood, george orwell or tony benn (all can be said to represent the working classes despite being toffs) or indeed morrissey (a hero to - and model for - english middle-class youngsters depite having distinctly working class origins himself).
At any rate the worldview of the playboy at the top actually pretty much does mirror that of the middle american: venal, nasty, utterly rejecting empathy for people who look or act differently, deeply anti-intellectual, primitively religious and ambitious for personal success without any higher desire to contribute to the world (and from a psycological point of view, christian evangelising comes under the heading of pursuit of 'personal success' rather than contribution). In all these respects he's on the same level as the average american, only with vastly more inherited wealth.
Not that michael moore actually ever tries to analyse anything on this sort of level. he's become a bit wank since his tv stuff frankly.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
'morrissey (a hero to - and model for - english middle-class youngsters' ??
Speak for yourself mate!
I enjoyed the movie but thought it could have been a lot more effective if done differently.
- overuse of the crying mother - seems tacky and a bit exploitative
- throwing a barage of not necessarily associated facts about bush at us, in the hope we'll draw a general conclusion from them without noticing the slightly dodgy logic that connects them
- quite a few badly-checked facts thrown about by the sounds of it, which he could easily have avoided by asking for some criticism on his voiceover script-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Name one fact that doesn't hold up. When you say 'badly checked', the New Yorker's fact checkers and several legal teams went through every statement. And nobody else has found a single duff one.
Did you spot something the mighty American Right missed? Or haven't you seen it yet?-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I've seen it, this was based on reading the christopher hitchens article and some other pieces on the net. It's mostly pretty nitpicking stuff but nevertheless I think he could have covered his ass better. Shame as I do agree with the general points the film is trying to make.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
if you want to see some of the many holes he picks in moore's argument and various facts presented in the film. Hitchens is a bit of an arrogant tosspot but he does have some points-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
The article I read about it in The Sunday Times tore absolute shreds off of Moore. The reviewer (sorry, name escapes me) actually rated the film quite highly, but he managed to pick six or seven scenes in which Moore was talking utter bullshit. See my earlier post about Bush sitting round the pool with his 'mates'.
The difference Tobyj, is that you will find that Moore only lied about stuff he couldn't be sued for. All of the 'hard facts' quoted by Moore (and let's face it, there's only about 12 of them in the entire film), are meticulously researched and unquestionable. My beef is with the other hour and a half of sketchy bollocks and conjecture.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
"you will find that Moore only lied about stuff he couldn't be sued for"
he shouldn't have to lie!
-
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
"A bit" of an arrogant tosspot? I think its pathological. As ever, Hitchens is obsessed with nit-picking and with individual, unconnected issues. Yes, Michael Moore isn't as great as a lot of people think he is, and no doubt nor is this film, but we should not mistake this for the presumption that any effect his film will have will be negative.
As ever, Hitchens wears his own gushing pompousness as a badge of honour, and is more interested in feeding his own ego and taking pot-shots at people he doesn't like than in getting a coherent picture which assesses the long term consequences of the invasion of Iraq, or of Moore's film.
We can immediately dismiss anybody who uses the tired old hyperbole about "If we listened to....then....would still be in power", but Hitchens goes much further: he is far too short sighted not to cut his nose off to spite his face by feeding the corrupt interests he supposedly opposes. Right now, the task is to get rid of Bush, and this film is likely to cause more good than harm in that respect.
Hitchens mistakes the fact that he has a lot to say with the idea that he actually has any intellectual integrity. He is considerably less clever than he thinks he is. Both Moore and Hitchens are the kind of people that try to cover up their inability to present a logical argument with a barrage of facts. The difference is that Hitchens seems to delight in adding fuel to the fire of people that want to silence anybody that stands up to the establishment, while Moore might, albeit more by luck than judgement, do some good.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
And even crispy hitchens' brother has said he's a liar. The key question someone should ask crispy is, does he still think Kissinger is a war criminal, and if so, why does he defend the administration that employs him.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
There's nothing like consistency. And this is nothing like consistency. Hitchens is a cock juggler. I don't know what makes Kissinger a war criminal for Vietnam, Nicaragua and whatever, and not Don Rumsfeld, Ricardo Sanchez or whoever was in charge of the massacres in Falluja, or using cluster bombs or napalm on press-ganged Iraqi "soldiers". Do two wrongs make a right? Hitchens seems to operate on whatever whim seems more irritating at the time.
-
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
"As ever, Hitchens wears his own gushing pompousness as a badge of honour"
Gushing pompousness? Surely the badge of the left, not the right?
"Right now, the task is to get rid of Bush, and this film is likely to cause more good than harm in that respect."
Wasn't that what people said about our Tory government? What did we get instead. New Labour. If it weren't for Gordon Brown being a decent chancellor, New Labour would have done literally everything wrong, from the trivial (anyone remember the Milennium Dome) to the serious (Britain starting a war! Even Thatcher only invaded the Falklands in defence) and all of the fuck ups in between. Will Kerry do any better then Bush. I can't wait to find out...
"while Moore might, albeit more by luck than judgement, do some good."
Is that a fact or your opinion? I think it may well be your blinkered, radical left opinion...
Look at the people Moore targets. Radical left aged 19, middle class with two labradors and a Volvo by age 35, and voting centre right for ever more. The man's a big child who thinks he's still running for class president.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
whats centre-right about labradors?? labradors are so apolitical, they even come in a choice of colours. -
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Right now, the task is to get rid of Bush, and this film is likely to cause more good than harm in that respect."
Wasn't that what people said about our Tory government? What did we get instead. New Labour. If it weren't for Gordon Brown being a decent chancellor, New Labour would have done literally everything wrong, from the trivial (anyone remember the Milennium Dome) to the serious (Britain starting a war! Even Thatcher only invaded the Falklands in defence) and all of the fuck ups in between. Will Kerry do any better then Bush. I can't wait to find out...
Cynicism will get you nowhere. I think you may have forgotten what Thatcher was really like. No I don't like New Labour and don't trust Tony Blair as far as I could throw him (in fact I despise him), but they are, honestly better than Thatcher for this country at least. You never hear about any positive things in the media. Extra investment in public services, and a commitment not to entirely cover poor people with shit is a start. Look at Michael Howard's domestic policies - they just seem to parrot Labour, but magnify all the shit things they do even more. Look at hospitals - they've started this totally pointless war of words over "patient choice", and want to subsidise people to use private health care. I'll be voting for you then Howard, when hell freezes over. It would require a pretty superhuman feat for Kerry to do worse than Bush.
And Gordon Brown, decent chancellor? Yes if all you're interested is keeping "the British economy" healthy, but one of the problems with New Labour's economic policy (and with neo-liberalism in general) is that they think that economic growth is an end in itself. In fact they seem to want to turn the public services into one big market and feed the corporations in a way that totally undermines their supposed social democratic credentials. Their 'Third Way' seems to imply an incoherent, almost deceptive agenda. I don't expect Brown to be any better than Blair.
"while Moore might, albeit more by luck than judgement, do some good."
Is that a fact or your opinion? I think it may well be your blinkered, radical left opinion...
To paraphrase Goethe, all facts are already opinions. The question makes no sense. But I resent being labelled as "radical left". Radical yes, but part of the problem is the fundamentalism implied by labels - with the entire "left" being written off just because of Michael Moore. Gushing pompousness is anybody's prerogative. Frankly, our political system is a mess: policy seems to be based on social theory which is consistently about 30 years out of date, and the only people who become politicians have more ego than nous. The entire country is kept in a state of political inertia by a shit, cynical media. All I'm trying to do is make the best of the situation we have - revolution is so 1968. Yes, it isn't promising that Moore is the most outspoken voice on the American "left", but I have to concede, reluctantly, he's better than no voice at all.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Well said. Finally, a well balanced and non-vitriolic response. Give yourself a pat on the back for making me take notice of your opinion. -
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Yeah, seconded. Well done for actually thinking in more than one dimension. -
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Thirded, and i agree almost all of that. Especially the bits about Tory and Labour war of words over hospitals, and the reluctance in recognising Moore as better than nothing.
I'd say further in defense of (New) Labour that they only lost their way in the second term. Whereas the first term was a pretty good left of centre, reforming government.
My only slight quibble would be that i think economic growth, low unemployment and low inflation are reasonable obejctives for economic policy. i'm not sure what you could have instead...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
You're a 20 year old guy in Oxford. How on earth do you know what the real middle of America is like? There is a mass of evidence and analysis that suggests the bracket that were the middle classes in terms of income and standard of life is slipping toward the end of the scale marked 'poor'. Check out Statistics Canada for reports on the increase of the rich-poor gap, how the old middle class is increasingly hard up, how middl emanagerial positions in various corporations are fazed out, leaving the top few, a couple of bosses and then the drone workers. The old standards of class are pretty much fucked nowdays, it's pointless to use them. I live in a shitty Wiltshire town. My parents own their house so get considered to be middle class, depsite us not having a new car and cable TV as many on the nearby council estate do. Does living on a council estate make you working class? My mother has worked for 25 years as a school teacher coming from a poor backgorund in East London. She isn't 'Middle England'. In the end, your diatribe about Middle America is retarded to the highest possible level and, at best, could be said to be as blinkered and xenophobic as some of those Americans that you express such hate for. And fuck off with the snide comment about Christian evangelism: go and see some black evangelical services in poor black majority areas of Toronto and tell them that it's all about personal success and not about the community or contribution).
It seems that Michael Moore isn't the only one who's a bit wank.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
"Does living on a council estate make you working class?"
Actually, i think it does; but that's more about culture than about income. I'm not sure where people in boguht council houses fit in... but don't they get a bit of stick from the proper working class?
I dont think Bush represents middle america, because i dont think there is a middle america. I agree with what you said elsewhere in this thread about the "with us or against us" thing being a good analogy for america in general right now.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
There really is no point taking on labels. It only reinforces the problem - class becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is not to say that class doesn't exist, just that classes, countries, races, cultures etc. are all fictional communities. There is no point celebrating them for their own sake.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Absolutely. Class isn't something you can define with a hard and fast set of criteria; nor is it static throughout a person's life. My parents live in a council house. When they moved there, I was 2: my mum was a 'full-time mother' and did odd cleaning jobs for extra cash, my dad was a hospital porter. More than two decades on, both are degree-educated and my mum is a teacher, yet they still live in the same house and are commited to 'working class' causes (if such a thing exists..?!). I have no idea what 'class' to put them in but at the same time I don't subsribe to the idea that we live in a classless society. That seems to imply that we're all on an equal level... people who talk about the wonderful standard of living in the West (and I agree, compared to most we have it pretty good) are forgetting about an entire section of society - those people who have next to nothing.
Thus endeth the rant for today..
-
-
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
"And fuck off with the snide comment about Christian evangelism: go and see some black evangelical services in poor black majority areas of Toronto and tell them that it's all about personal success and not about the community or contribution."
Please don't pretend there's such a thing as altruism. Its really not worth it. This is one of the genuine problems a lot of people have with organised religion - people help each other because they've been ordered to, not because they've been able to make a choice about why that course of action might be good for them: they have to be paid off with nonsense about personal freedom or heaven. You're told you can be a "good person" just by blindly following a few simple rules made up several thousand years ago by a load of old guys in the Middle East who were probably by today's standards certifiably insane. Of course loving God is always more important than helping other people, and at all times you must pretend not to be in any way self-interested.
Before I get accused of inciting religious hatred, I have to say you have to make a distinction between what people think they are doing and the ultimate effects of their actions. On a short term basis, Christian churches benefit the community, they give people direction and indisputably help a lot of people. Yet ultimately, religion reinforces a dogmatic sense of duty rather than taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions. At its worst, its manifested in the kind of deception, exploitation and homophobia you see in the African church, or the hysterical apocalyptic fundamentalism you see in parts of the US. Suggesting that Christianity as a phenomenon is ultimately a poisonous pile of wank is not the same thing as suggesting all Christians are terrible people. In a lot of cases there's not a lot they can do about it. There is no such thing as a truly "informed choice".-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Well, I vote we put Chiaroscuro in charge of Britain and America. In truth I'd made myself front runner for the job, but he's (she's?) blatantly a fuck load cleverer than me, not to mention infinitely more well balanced. Wonderful summing up of the church and the description of those that came up with Christianity. Nail. Hit. Head.
Chiaroscuro for Prez!-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Cheers. I'm certainly coming round to the idea of benevolent dictatorship.
And btw to put an end to the he/she equivocation, instantiating that infuriating gender essentialism which seems to permeate every level of Western discourse, I have a Y chromasome and I can throw properly. Get me? -
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Shit. Did I just write that out loud?
-
-
-
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
"Sure he does! You don't have to be anything at all like someone to 'represent' them: take robin hood.."
So acting on behalf of and in the best interests of? When the hell did he do that? It's quite plain to see that he acts on behalf of his own interests, and the interests of the people who put him in office, which was NOT American voters, FYI.
The only President the US has had in the past twenty years that acted in the best interest of the people was Bill Clinton.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
"The only President the US has had in the past twenty years that acted in the best interest of the people was Bill Clinton."
And there was me thinking he did everything in the best interest of his cock. Then lied about it.
Bring back Reagan! He was fuckin' mental!
....oh.....he's dead.....
-
-
-
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
What I've found interesting about this film is how a lot of the papers that I thought would give it a glowing review (e.g. the anti-Bush Observer) have done exactly the opposite. Quite a few of them have said that they agree with his views, yet the film could actually harm the cause of those who wish to convey this message to the masses. For one thing... I can't stand Bush, but if he had gotten up when he was told about the 9/11 attacks and started running round in a panic, would that have done anyone any favours? Would leaving as soon as he heard about it have stopped it from happening? Would an ethical foreign policy have helped to prevent it in the first place? Ooops... that last question just sneaked in.
Anyway, I'm seeing it tomorrow and will make my own mind up, then post on here again.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
It was Mark "the Exorcist is demonstrably the greatest film of all time" Kermode reviewing it. You surely don't expect a sensible opinion from him. Its cool to diss Moore nowadays, though the point about it harming his cause, particularly in the long term, is potentially right.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Mark Kermode is probably the only film critic, outside of those who write for sight and sound, who's view i trust. I quite liked Bowling for Columbine, but in Roger & Me and 9/11 you just end up disliking Moore despite agreeing with what he is saying.
-
-
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
"Luckily, there's not a single duff fact in this movie - it's been meticulously checked and double-checked."
Where on God's Earth did you find the monkey that reviewed this film? Is he Michael Moore's brother in law? For fuck's sake Sean, You may as well have just printed a picture of Toby Jarvis running his tongue round the rim of Moore's bell-end instead of this...ahem...review. Jarvis is obviously as interested in 'truth' as Moore, they should hook up.
The problem with Moore is that he could make a movie called I Saw Bush Raping A Grandma and most of the dumb, greasy, Che Guevara worshipping alternative yoof would still believe it and cast their votes against him. Fair enough, vote Democrat, but not because a fat, Communist bullshitter made a film that suggested you should. 20 years ago the fat cunt would have mysteriously disappeared by now. Come on Bush, give him to Al-Qaeda. That's one head I could watch roll....-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Now... whilst I just had a minor pop at Mr Moore above, I find myself having to defend him. There's an anti-Mike book and film coming out called 'Michael Moore Is A Stupid Fat White Man' and 'Michael Moore Hates America' respectively. Spot the link? The anti-Mike brigade can't ever debate on the facts, it's all 'he's fat', 'he's anti-American', 'he's a commie' and so on.
Yes, the film is an opinion piece, but as for the fact's they're based on? Check here...
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/
...yes, it's Michael's site, but trust me, they'd be suing him to within an inch of his life if they could disprove any of it.
And here's another 'nay-sayer' piece (again, on his site, but taken from another one...)
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/mikeinthenews/index.php?id=78
And don't get me wrong. I'm not sticking up for him completely... I get the impression there are some major flaws in this film, but the whole inability for the right to debate on the facts scares the life out of me. You could of course be attempting to wind us up, but I don't know you so I can't check.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I've done the misplaced apostrophe trick haven't I? That's what happens when you do stream-of-consciousness rants. Can someone change the DiS site so that we can edit our posts? -
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Ah, but everyone's doing it with the titles. Check out Al Franken's books, hardly friendly words are they? Earlier on there's talk about the middle ground and middle America. I think it's bullshit because of the way the US is now. The most important speech of this decade is Bush's "With us or against us" speech. That set the target, it made for no blurring of lines: you're a friend or an enemy, a Republican or a Democrat, left of right. It's the same with books, you either reading the Republican spew or the Democrat yawn. Personally some of the best politcal bookwriting of the last few years is by Tucker Carlson, a guy who now sits on CNN's ludicrously bad Crossfire show and represents the GOP side. Now he wrote a book on Bush's ride to power and it was excellent, it wasn't right favouring, it did criticise him too. It is possible to take positives and negatives from both sides. In Bush's case, there are more negatives than positives. In the Democrat side, it's a little better. Frankly, in America right now you have two pretty unappealling options as you do with Labour and the Tories this year. It's a case of finding which turd you go for.
Says the Lib Dem voter. Ha.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
You're exactly right about america and the press, but it only annoys me about the left. I expect the right to be extreme, avoiding dialogue (usually blinkered by what they believe is common sense); i expect more of the left.
PS good to see you posting again, cogent, well thought out and informative, as always.
-
-
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Calm down Stephen, you're embarrassing yourself in front of some grown-ups. -
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Just cause you disagree with the reviewers opinion doesnt entitle you to be a COCK about it.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Yes it does. Now get your head back in Michael's lap before he gets angry and makes a film about you.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
only if you get your head out your arse first.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
It's out OF your arse, you ill educated socialist..
*POP*
That's my part of the deal done...-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Firstly 'Youdontknow' -- you only have to read this guys posts on this forum and his profile to see what an ignorant idiot he is.
Steve, i suggest you read back through your posts and see who appears more 'ill educated' as you so elequently put it.
I totally agree with whoever wrote the thread that suggests that the opposers of michael moore seem to do nothing more than critisize the guy's weight and say his films are not depicting the truth about what happened in 9/11 without actually dis-proving the facts stated within the film.??
The parts of the film that made me the most angry was the information on the opposition from various states to the phoney election of bush, only to see their concerns and objections ruled down as no-one from the corrupt US senate would sign(read???) and authorise the objections!! democracy, hmmmm i don't think so!!
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
"For fuck's sake Sean, You may as well have just printed a picture of Toby Jarvis running his tongue round the rim of Moore's bell-end instead of this...ahem...review. "
It would have made for a great intermission advert whilst I'm restocking my popcorn barrel.. any bets on whether Moore would ejaculate given this treatment?
-
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
what annoys me most about michael moore is the exploitative shite like following the grieving mum around - it's completely unnecessary. If he let the facts speak for themselves a bit more and stopped that shit i'd respect him a whole lot more.
Personally my politics are pretty extreme, as i don't believe in a lot of what the "left" says: all trying not to offend anyone and whatnot, but i'm also extremely anti-right. I find the whole democratic process completely disheartening.
Hell, let's have a socialist dictatorship! Fuck the rich! :D-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
>> I find the whole democratic process completely disheartening.
The only problem is that it relies on the general public to pick a good government. Which, apparently, we can't do to save our lives :) -
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
hmm... i think the point of the lila liscomb lila liscomb is to show how the attitude of a self confessed flag waving patriot can change when her son gets killed in iraq. She then receives letts from her son saying he disagrees with the war. She didn't have to agree to be in the film, and she phoned Moore up to tell him she was going to the White House. Who is exploiting who? She has since being doing plenty of interviews with the press, I believe publicising the anti-war group she is involved in put together by military parents. These voices are not often heard in America. Don't forget, the president banned the filming of coffins! In many ways, it is the most powerful segment of the film, just as seeing the reaction of grieveing parents to the Butler report was powerful on Channel 4 news the other night.
-
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I'm seeing it tomorrow.
From the hundreds reviews I've read over the last couple of weeks, I'm expecting a well-made film with an argument that wanders and goes off-course somewhat about half way through.
More when I've seen it... -
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I would agree with most of the criticisms above, but it's worth remembering that Moore has never denied that a) it's a biased piece of film-making, and b) it has an explicit agenda - to stop Bush being re-elected. It's not aimed primarily at a European audience, but at a largely uninformed American one. Judging from the reactions it's been getting from the public over there, it's not doing too bad a job either.
I found myself wincing a lot when I watched it. It's disjointed, it lingers too long in places and moves on too quickly in others, it's often exploitative and has countless other flaws - but these are things you expect from Michael Moore. I'm most interested in seeing whether it has the desired effect...-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Exactly. This is the point a lot of people seem to be missing. In the long term, Moore probably doesn't do the "liberal" cause many favours, but in the short term, he might be the best we've got.
-
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
"Never start anything on a Friday."
Does drinking count?-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Well I'd take Stevie youdontknow (the poppet)'s subnormal dribbling more seriously, if I didn't imagine it spoken in grimy lumpen tones somewhere between Jethro and Eddie Grundy.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Who the fuck are you anyway Tobyj? Do you fancy me or something?-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Well, you're briefly fascinating. Such aching, vivid description of oral sex from someone who hasn't been with a woman.
But having had your mum already, I can't really stretch another of your fetid clan, no, I must up and move on.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Very good Toby. You're hilarious. And obviously very intelligent too..
Now, as I've said to many others of your ilk before you, if you REALLY hate the west, it's power, it's corruption, it's endless exploitation of less developed nations, then why not stop bitching and book a flight. Iraq? Afghanistan? China? Anywhere. You don't like it here, we don't like you here, what the fuck is stopping you?
Could it be the standard of living? (courtesy of good ol' capitalism)
The Armchair revolutionary. Is there a sadder, more hippocrisy ridden beast on God's Earth?-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
thats not even a fully-formed argument. you present someone with a completely irrelevant hobbesian choice and when they refuse to rise to the bait no doubt you smirk and feel all smug and warm inside.
I do hate the corruption and the exploitation of the west, but like most people i would hate to be pointlessly uprooted from my home and sent to a country which is worse. Obviously. The fact that i think eg, modern day china is appalling IN NO WAY detracts from my belief that the west is also applalling and could be made a far happier place. Your logic is utterly shit.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
And did you read his comment beforehand? Something about fucking my mother? That's the balanced liberal argument is it?
-
-
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Hey toby... I know several gay men who have never been with a chick yet can tell you stories that would make your eyes spin about sucking great arcs of warm cum down their throat.
-
-
-
-
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Absolutely. Drinking should start way before Friday.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
So Kirsty, did you save Histon station?
-
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
"modern day china is appalling". WRONG. China is actually becoming a better place to live in, the economy is growing, and its rise in international importance is vital to counterbalance the strength of America. A world in which there is only one superpower is a very dangerous thing and if China can challenge America's policies on issues, good.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
yep, China and the US as the world's only two superpowers sounds like fun for everyone!
-
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
but you'd simply disappear over there for critising the government (or increasingly, for critising your employer) or being in a punk band and the like. some people are actually far worse of as a result of the liberalisation of the economy, and government at all levels is still hopelessly corrupt. by all accounts, vietnam is a better example of a post-maoist society - i dunno, maybe i'd rather be growing up there.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I am an American. I hate George Bush and the repubicans. There are alot of stupid americans and alot of of americans who (aparently) analyze the world differntly. Sorry. But at least there seem to be some stupid English too because some of what you people wrote is just retarded-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Yep. Anyone who attacks Americans just because they don't like GW is missing the point and not helping their argument. -
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Stupidity is no nationality's prerogative. I think a lot of people outside the US who are 'anti-American' i.e. oppose the concept of "America" as a kind of neo-imperial nationalist cult confuse this with being 'anti-Americans', i.e. detesting the people there, which is obnoxious and ultimately totally pointless. Its a bit like hating all Iraqis because of the existence of Saddam Hussein. These are the people to ignore.
-
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
"some people are actually far worse of as a result of the liberalisation of the economy"
Substitute "some" for "most", and you're about right. Neo-liberalism and "trickle-down" economics is bullshit propaganda for rich people. Its as hopelessly out of date as Communism. It doesn't even necessarily make any economic, let alone social sense. The best way for a developing country to improve is generally by doing the opposite of what the IMF or World Bank (both hijacked by the US treasury right from the start) tells them to do. Or it would be, if the US and EU didn't threaten to take away their aid and support if they do.
Look what happened to post-Communist Russia - absolutely fucked economically to start with, now controlled by oil-rich oligarchs like Khodorkovsky and Abramovich. Nice one. China will just be the same, but even more powerful. Not looking forward to it.
-
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Modern day China may be prosperous in terms of economy, but do you not remember Tianneman Square?? There are ppl from that incident who cant even speak out - one guy gave an interview - he'd had his leg blown off by the armed forces + nothing was done + he cant work etc etc(cant spell...sorry..im ignorant.) the basic principles of Communism are still present in China albeit a more liberal form so although China may be economically prosperous arent many of the ppl, ethically speaking still suppressed? However hoho, ok the West - though people may hate Bush and his admin...hmm let me see OH YES, Britain spent hundreds of years upholding its Imperial suppression on..well much of the world. The legacy of British Imperialsm still lives on - Africa, India, Cyprus Ireland etc - should we really be criticising America when Britain's actions in the past still have devestating repurcussions today?
on the subject of Moore -HELLO???? I dont give a shite what he looks like, but he is middle class America, he is NOT the working class, i havent seen F9/11 yet but i intend to, dont spout these 'proletariat' ramblings when you can afford to live in relative luxury. (see Observer Online interview). He should really mingle with working class America, THEn he could see what the average working class American is like. He aint socialist.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Modern day China may be prosperous in terms of economy, but do you not remember Tianneman Square??
You've hit the nail on the head. The most serious problem in the world today is corporate globalisation. The US, Britain and increasingly China are part of a consensus which suggests that economic prosperity or "national interest" is more important than basic human satisfaction. We're bombarded with mythology every day by the media: racism, nationalism, materialism, religion: they are all pointless obstructions between us and personal well-being. I've met people in sub-Saharan Africa who are more happy with their lives than people here (material "poverty" is not necessarily the same thing as deprivation). The US government considers it perfectly legitimate to try to shape the world (including Iraq) in its own image either because they don't give a shit about the long term consequences, or they have totally lost track of what people really want from life. This is what Michael Moore should really be making a fuss about. Its not anything inherent about America that has turned it into the only imperial power. The Bush administration is just an extreme manifestation of this neo-liberal consensus. "End of history" mythology, helped along with a good dose of fundamentalist religion and militant nationalism has totally evacuated any kind of humility or perspective from the people like George Bush and Tony Blair. China is likely to be just as bad, if not worse.
What we're seeing now in international terrorism is a kind of virus which this system was always destined to produce. They should really teach world systems theory or Deleuzian nomadology in schools. If you are totally ignorant of the impact of your behaviour on the rest of the world, the rest of the world will at some point strike you back, using your own weapons, disrupting the infrastructure you used to hang onto power. It has happened over and over again through history: the Eastern Mediterranian hegemony in the Iron Age was toppled by Phoenician piracy, the Roman Empire was brought down by "barbarians" who managed to undercut the elite's sources of power. On a different level, the post-medieval transcendental aesthetic we call "art" was attacked by modernism and post-modernism, but as yet hasn't collapsed. The music industry is (in my opinion in an ultimately positive way) being undermined by internet piracy. Its always basically the same phenomenon: cycles of hegemony and collapse.
The problem is that politics is so far behind the needs of people in the world it's almost farcical. Post-modernism and socialism are already out of date. We need to move straight to a much more pragmatic system based on both "individual", "social" and "economic" concerns, not one or the other.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
You are Tom Eyers, and I claim my five pounds.
(Seriously though, nice post.)-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Tom Eyres? Five pounds? Que?-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
ow, tom eyres, now that's harsh-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
If it is Tom Eyres, he's got a hell of a lot more intelligent over the last 12 months...
I feel I'm learning stuff from this guy/girl.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Do you mean to say I write in an androgynous style? I have no idea who Tom Eyres is, so no, I assume I'm not him.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I think there's a lot of interesting points in there. But I'm not sure this utilitarian approach is a solution to what you call a neo-liberal consensus. Or that any more consessions to individualism are helpful. Some bits of the analysis don't seem, to me, to fit either.
Of course, in the long-term, power structures are always gonna be reversed, just like empires always collapse. But i dont see how modern-day terrorism, and other historical uses of violence to topple politcal power bases, are comparable with the more routine, constantly adjusting nature of power relations through elements of superstructure, like art and music.
And I dont think anything is inevitable until it's happened, so maybe the current American variation on "imperialism" isn't inherent. But their use of their new world status to manipulate economic advantage is something of a constant. Perhaps America's history has led it to Reagan/Bush-style aggressive superpower status, in the same way, and to a similar degree, as Germany's led to Nazism.
PS what the fuck is Deleuzian nomadology ?-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
> PS what the fuck is Deleuzian nomadology ?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0936756098/qid=1090160113/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i4_xgl/202-5682720-0975000
Order it today!-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
shit! someone else sees the light!
-
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
It may look like utilitarianism but it isn't. More like pragmatism. I'm not talking about 'concessions to individualism' so much as recognising that real individuals exist no more or less than any other unit of analysis like "society". You could just as well argue the converse of Thatcher - that "there's no such thing as the individual", but at the end of the day, its counterproductive: society is supposed to exist for the benefit of individuals. We too easily fall into the trap of methodological individualism, for example, a strictly utilitarian calculation of the acceptable level of "collateral damage" in war is very one dimensional, and ignores both moral questions about killing innocent people, and the impact on wider society. Its all about a much more multidimensional analysis - its not an either/or question between what's best for the individual
OR society. What I'm talking about is changing the way in which people think - allowing them not to be slaves to mythology, so ultimately they realise that there are much more important things to worry about than starting wars.
As for the terrorism thing, I'm talking on the most basic level about the difference between hegemony and resistance, or reaction and action (this is where Deleuze comes in - the most underrated philosopher ever. Everybody read his work now, its too complicated to explain briefly). There is a temptation to obscure the roots of terrorism by seeing it as an alien or, in GW's case, "evil" force, coming from the "outside", with heavy use of metaphors that suggest it is "medieval" and wants to drag the world back in time, rather than being a product of modernity.
Art and music might be constantly shifting, but it's always a series of mini-hegemonies. Its impossible to draw the line, but there's always an interplay between adherence to the strictures of genre and taste, and the free play of creativity. Read my ramblings about Refused's 'The Shape of Punk to Come' on this very site to see what I mean.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Yes, i agree completely about the concepts of individual and society.
And share your optimism about human nature not being an absolute. and that with a btter understanding, and with more will to understand, the world would be a better place. and can be a better place... Even now, I believe people are more, and make more complex calcluations in life than just being consumers. People make economic cost-value, and moral ethical judgements all the time. Information is the key to everything (including the current "consensus"'s actual power, and perception of power).
But your point of view is stretching the optimism too far in arguing that if people are bullies, and ignore the internal (contributory)causes of exogenous forces, always blaming an "other", then they'll inevitably get burned, their power structures will be reversed, resisted, subverted. Terrorism, including, maybe especially, Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, is a product of modernity, but that isnt the same as saying that it's caused by the neo-liberal consensus. Yes, some American, Western, policies have led to the rise of terrorism. Legacies of colonialism, post-19th century nationalism are also crucial, but terrorism somes from a feeling of hopelessness by the weaker side, when cultures clash. So the cause aren't even completely internal to western culture, never mind the far more limited current politcal landscape.
But, thanks for the reference. I'll look into reading some Deleuze. Sounds pretty interesting, and I might have a better idea what you're getting at by then (the first post still reads like utilitarian individualism to me... but from the clarifications in the second one i think we're on similar wavelengths... maybe... you tell me...).
I'd judge the problem to be, that people dont fully understand the nature of the assumptions, and economic relations, their society rests on. Not only in terms of long-term costs to themselves, but in long-term efftects on others. And, worse, they don't want to know. "Knowledgeable ignorance" to misuse a term i'm sure someone else twisted in a popular book recently. I do rate altruism (I consider myself Christian too, but that's another debate...), and i do have faith (urgh, even i cringe at that word) that that if people are forced to understand consequence of their actions, or shown the conseqeunces, or, better, develop the drive to find out, then we'll move away from the current type of politcal regime (which really we've had since the 80s, even with the more human faces of Blair and Clinton). As, i think, Blair says: there are tough choices ahead... or was that Michael Howard....-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I'm not really talking about inevitability here, I'm just talking about what's tended to happen in the past. Of course if the US manages to militarise space and develop new types of nuclear weapon then they might have more security for a while, but it will more than likely start a new arms race.
And of course terrorism isn't "internal" to modernity or Western society, but I'm not really talking about society here - it takes place on a kind of middle ground where a number of different interests intersect. I'm not really talking about "causes" either. What I'm trying to do is draw out one particular common thread in geopolitical change: the basic hegemony/resistance cycle. This isn't THE explanation for terrorism, but rather gives a kind of starting framework from which to start thinking about changing things. "Explanations" are dangerous things and I tend to try and avoid them.
And you won't like this, but I really think altruism is a pretty meaningless concept, and surely "knowledgeable ignorance" is the same thing as "faith"? (c.f. Blair, Tony). I'm not particularly optimistic either. I don't see the world changing fundamentally any time soon, but I like to pretend.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
and I still haven't seen this bastard film!-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I'm not sure that talking about geo-political hegemony/resistance is any different to Greek ideas of cyclical history, or a medieval christain variation of that, or the idea of a wheel of fortune, or settler areas in the wild west. It's all just a cylical thing, isnt it?
I accept you have to be wary when talking about causality, as liberal godfather J.S.Mill, amongst others has pointed out, but the use of any framework, including a cyclical one, priviledges certain pieces of information over others. In that case, to take one example, by making very different events in political history, and the history of civilisations, equate with one another - as if they are examples of an absolute phenomena. It also ignores cultural influence - if thats significant - of marginalised social groups - power doesnt only work top-down, even before the collapse. (although i have less of a problem with this bit, since i have quite strong Marxist leanings when it comes to history...)
By "knowledgeable ignorance" i'm using it in a similar (i cant remember exactly how they use it) sense to it's used in that "why do people hate america" book, to point to things like americans not trying to understand terrorism, when it's easier to see it as entirely "external". Or by choosing to ignore unfair trading arrangements, while still getting cheap goods. i think it's a useful term here, because i dont think its that people dont care, its that they dont want to find out the realities, because then they'd be forced to change their actions. And if they believed they could change things, instead of thinking "theres no point you cant change anything", then they could change things.
On second thoughts, i share your pessismism: i dont see change anywhere nearby either...
I do find it strange, when it comes to religion that so many intelligent people, in Britain, find it ridiculous that people believe in god... maybe i should give him/her (God has an androgynous tone, dont you think?) a capital. It's as if the no less unreasonable leap of faith to not believe is easier. And even when people argue about religion being used to hide from choices, you could say the same about any philosophy, theory, belief, non-belief. Even Sartre brings back in some idea about acting in good faith.. (i cant remember the exact term he uses, but its something like that...)
I havent seen the film... it might be worth seeing... maybe... possibly... I feel my money may be better spent on a book or two though....-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I'm not talking about inevitability or history repeating itself, its just that I'm not (just) a humanist, and recognise certain "machinic" (sensu Deleuze and Guattari) processes going on in the world. Its just a tool - as I said, I was never trying to exhaust explanation - I strongly believe in multiple, parallel accounts of history which are used to illustrate different points.
About the God thing, I just have a problem when theism is taken as the default position. It was never a leap of faith for me not to believe in God - I was never brought up to give the idea any credibility. I see theism as something which needs to be justified, rather than something that has an automatic right to exist as a "fact on the ground", and it is by definition something that refuses to justify itself. Any totally unfalsifiable pronouncement seems as good as any other to me. Its no more a leap of faith for me than not to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the world momentarily ceases to exist whenever I blink.
I totally agree with the point that most philosophy, especially the Euro-American system (with its refusal to question the notion of "being" as transcendent) is just as faith-based as Christianity. I wouldn't touch Sartre with a barge pole, mainly because I think the ontological premises of his arguments are nonsense. I have a degree in archaeology and anthropology, and I would have found it incredibly difficult to reconcile that with any kind of religious belief, seeing as it would condemn me to the position that the people I was studying were "wrong" in their beliefs (this doesn't mean I'm a cultural relativist, just that I find the concept of "wrong" unhelpful). I don't really buy people trying to fit human evolution into Christianity either. I specialised in the period of prehistory in which something like "religion" appears to have developed, and can see perfectly reasonable explanations why it did (you'll be pleased to know I'm not a fan of Richard Dawkins) which don't rely on it being "true". I have also seen the damage that Christianity can do when transplanted to other parts of the world: you can use exactly the same argument about "knowledgeable ignorance" here. I also think a lot of the tenets of many of the world religions are either very unhelpful, or in some cases actively offensive. I think ultimately the only way people are going to be able to live peacefully side by side in the world is by killing God. Apart from that I think God is great.
Most importantly, I find things fit together a lot more neatly and coherently without a God. One of the best books I've read recently is Peter Singer's The President of Good and Evil - he explains how an ethical system based on dogma (talking about GW) is likely to result in logically inconsistent propositions which don't stand up to any kind of public debate.
Finally, the kind of philosophy I'm studying at the moment, people like Nietzche, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, Deleuze etc. don't make sense if there's a God. Yes, you do have to hang your judgements on beliefs if you want to make sense, but I see reifying these principles into things that exist for their own sake as dangerous. I don't like to think of anything that can't be questioned.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Um... isn't he from Flint Michigan? you know that dump of a town that's shown in the film. Unless he's from some nice middle class area of the same town, I suppose? I got the impression it was all pretty working class and run down though.-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Anyone fancy a pint?-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
not half!-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Yes please.
I'm a bitter man.
Like that wasn't obvious.
-
-
-
-
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
You have all had a go at me and largely misrepresented me. I never defended Communism there, I merely pointed out that a world with only one superpower (America) is more dangerous and unbalanced then a world with two (America and China).-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
A world with one superpower is more dangerous than a world with two? Are you a fucking retard? Imagine one boxer, alone in a ring. What are the odds of a fight breaking out? Now put another boxer in. What happens? Blimey, how some of you people manage to do your laces up in the morning and get out the door is beyond me...-
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
Could you have chosen a less appropriate analogy if you'd tried? Imagine there's a lone serial killer on the loose, but there are no police. -
Re: Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
>>Imagine one boxer, alone in a ring. What are the odds of a fight breaking out?
what are the odds of the crowd defending themselves when he gets bored sitting in the ring alone and turns on them?
>>Now put another boxer in. What happens?
he fights the other boxer. the 500 people in the crowd cheer and aplaud and go home and forget about it.
-
-
-
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I wonder If Mr Moore has realised that if this film is the winning offensive in his crusade to topple Bush, thenhe'll effectively be out of a job come November? -
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
OK. Seen it now, and for the most part I was pretty impressed. Nothing much new if you've read his last two books, and it was quite clearly an opinion piece (i.e. his point of view) - but one backed by facts.
There were flaws, but the one that annoyed most people - the alleged exploitation of the woman who lost her son - was one that I thought was actually justified. Everything is seen on such a macroscopic scale with modern warfare that people forget the effect on families. You were effectively able to see it for one of them, and then try to imagine it multiplied by thousands. And presumably the family gave full permission to be involved. This is not a first though - remember the stuff with the families of Dr Evil's henchmen in one of the Austin Powers films?
Um, bit of a tacky comparison that one, but I think we need a little levity in this debate... -
Michael Moore - Fahrenheit 9/11
I've also seen it now so here goes:
I really enjoyed this film. Yes, I felt it was flawed - and of course you have to take everything Moore says, even what *seems* to be presented as utterly de facto, with a liberal pinch of salt (no pun intended) - but ultimately, as a piece of entertainment, I thought it was great. Frankly, I'm not even going to bother with Moore's blatant (and unabashed) bias; the whole world knows what his views are and if you don't like them, that's cool, I can see why.
I only say this because I feel Moore's opinions only actually let the film down in about the final half-hour, where he tries to let human experience of the war "speak for itself". Moore can do mood pieces - see the CCTV sequence in "Bowling..." or substantial chunks of "Roger and Me" - but here he failed. Of course the images we see are utterly shocking, and of course we feel for the (in)famous grieving mother, but this is the only point in the picture I feel that Moore as a film-maker actually fails. In trying to lay the blame for all this suffering squarely at GW's feet, he gets far too preachy. Everything goes alarmingly one-dimensional and, quite simply, pretty crass.
However, this is pretty much my only criticism. Moore's use of archive footage here is just as good as ever: feeling the lovely scrap-book aesthetic of the opening hour-and-a-bit reminded me just why Moore's films are way better than his (really rather average) books. His on-screen "persona" takes much more of a back-seat role here: his commentary grates only momentarily, and largely serves only to encourage the general atmosphere of jocularity - to be honest, from some of the comments here, I was expecting some sort of blanket black-out hate attack, whereas what I got was actually something better described as simple irreverence.
Moore is nothing like as left-wing as everyone makes out. And this film is far less "serious" than people would have you believe (funnily enough its only failures come when it tries to be more "important" than it actually is). Yes, it's a propaganda film, and for that it ultimately suffers - after the "...Columbine" fiasco, trusting Moore on the facts becomes rather difficult. But, like Chris Martin and his fair trade or Bono and his globalisation, Moore is making an important point, and if he's overstepped the mark, then I'm prepared to let him off.
And if
Comments
Post a new comment on this review