I finally saw Fahreinheit 9/11 last night

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by rcyannacci
Why must a person have to be either "for" capitalism or "against" it? Could it perhaps more complicated than hypocritical?

There's are more choices than that? What would those be?

But I just don't see how this label of hypocrisy sticks.

I do. Like superglue.

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Obviously the money was not his chief interest if he encouraged people to do somethng other producers are having fits about. As to how much money he donated, I do not know. But neither do you, so why presume? Are you somehow saying he is a bad person if he does not donate all his profits? BTW...if you want to see who is giving to which political parties, from Oprah to Martha Stewart to your dentist...check out http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/byzip_result.php?zip=12549

Other producers may be having a fit, but he is still going to the bank with a very large check. For him, it is pr - and it is very effective.

I'm not saying he's a bad person is he doesn't donate all of his money, only that he is a hypocrite if he doesn't donate some of it.

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
If he feels as passionate about the issues as you suggest and to avoid the stereotypical opinion that flims are produced to maximize profit he should have taken only enough money to covers his costs. Or better yet, donate the films his entire proceeds ffrom the film to a (worthy) charity.

Right, because God forbid an artist should make money off of something they are passionate about.

The other choice, to answer your other question, would be continuing to participate within the system of capitalism but doing it with awareness and social responsibility, a choice that is familiar to many political artists, activists, environmentalist, etc.
Effective activism isn't always about either/or, yes or no, right or wrong questions. And if that's an answer that's unsatisfying to you, then I guess that just shows how widely divergent our approach to political issues are. I've said my peace.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by rcyannacci
Right, because God forbid an artist should make money off of something they are passionate about.

That's not the point. I don't care how much money he makes or gives away. But as Air Force Rocks has pointed out (several times) that he's railed against big business in the past but doesn't have a problem becoming one himself. There are MANY artists (and IMO, MM is NOT one) that do it for the love of the art and not the profit margin.

The other choice, to answer your other question, would be continuing to participate within the system of capitalism but doing it with awareness and social responsibility, a choice that is familiar to many political artists, activists, environmentalist, etc.
Effective activism isn't always about either/or, yes or no, right or wrong questions. And if that's an answer that's unsatisfying to you, then I guess that just shows how widely divergent our approach to political issues are. I've said my peace.

I say let the market decide. Unless a business is purposely cheating people or breaking other laws, what difference does it make how much money they make?

What social responsibility are your referring to?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Again, you are willing to argue this point based on what others have said.....how can it be a viable argument..surely it would be more interesting at least if you could say you saw for yourself how this evidence was presented.

And on that note I am done. Once again, someone who saw the movie started a thread to talk about their reaction, and people who have not seen it are telling her how wrong she is about what she saw. Some think there is a point in arguing what they have not seen for themselves. I do not. I regret being foolish enough to enter this discussion yet again.

This is just the typical strawman response regarding the Michael Moore movie. I don't need to have seen the movie to know that the Saudis don't own 7% of this country. They don't. That's factually incorrect. It has nothing to do with reactions or impressions. And if someone posts that they learned by watching this movie that the Saudis own 7% of this country, I don't have to have seen the movie to say, "That's not true."

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
Have you seen the film, Brenda?

Not Brenda, but I'll answer before you ask me as well. No, haven't seen it. I don't need to see it to know that something is not factual that you present as such based on what you saw in the movie.

Moore's message in this film is that the people who have the fewest benefits in our society are the first ones to step up to defend our country. All they ask is that we not send them into combat uinless it's absolutely necessary. And we've failed them in sending them to Iraq.

This is not backed up by the facts.

And I believe I saw something in the transcripts where he says that African American casualties were disproportionally higher in Iraq--also untrue.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by kbeverina
This is just the typical strawman response regarding the Michael Moore movie. I don't need to have seen the movie to know that the Saudis don't own 7% of this country. They don't. That's factually incorrect. It has nothing to do with reactions or impressions. And if someone posts that they learned by watching this movie that the Saudis own 7% of this country, I don't have to have seen the movie to say, "That's not true."

Can you provide any proof that this is anything other than your own opinion?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by kbeverina
Not Brenda, but I'll answer...

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
What I saw on the screen last night...

Moore hates that the people in power in this administration tell lies and half truths to the American people. Moore hates that none of the members of Congress actually read the Patriot Act before signing it into law.

If this is actually true--don't know if it is or not, though I find it hard to believe none read it--then I agree, that's not right. Either voting for or against.

Moore hates the poverty and unemployment that plague towns like Flint, Michigan. Moore hates that the Saudis own 7% of this country. that the aims of multinational corporations take presedence over the needs of the average American.

Again, as I mentioned in the above post to faithinkarma, it is completely untrue that the Saudis own 7% of America.

The movie quotes Craig Unger as saying something to the effect that he "heard" figures "as high as" $860 billion the Saudis have invested in America. This is supposed to be factual?

Facts say that's less than the total amount the Saudis have invested worldwide.

And even if that figure were true, it would only add up to about that percentage of total foreign investments in the US. Look at the US Census reports--Saudi Arabia isn't even listed in the "other countries" section, their ownership is that low.

Moore hates that our war effort in Afghanistan was half-baked. That our leadership ignored the Bin Laden threat and focused on Iraq.

That's his opinion, though I'm puzzled by it since it directly contradicts his earlier statements regarding bin Laden and going to Afghanistan. He was saying even a year after 9/11 that bin Laden should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and invading Afghanistan was unjustified. Back then, apparently we were doing too much. Now he's decided we were doing too little. That's very disingenuous of him.

Moore hates that we're going to hell in a handbasket and sacrificing the very freedoms we're allegedly bringing to the rest of the world.

Can't really respond to this since I'm not sure what he's talking about.

What I saw on the screen wasn't anti-American, it was very American -- a petition to the govenment to redress the wrongs done in the name of the American people.

I personally don't think this movie is "very American" at all. It's not right to make people think these things are true when they're not. And take their money to boot.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Can you provide any proof that this is anything other than your own opinion?

First, it's right there in the US Census Reports. Second, anyone who sat and logically thought about it for a few minutes, could see the fallacy in such a statement.

Are you telling me you actually believed that the Saudis own 7% of America?

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kbeverina
Not Brenda, but I'll answer...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh for god's sake, grow up and debate the facts.

If Jenny doesn't want me to answer the question she posed to Brenda, she can politely tell me she asked Brenda, not me, and is not interested in whether or not I saw the movie.

I asked jason a question and you said, "He already answered you!" He hadn't and I told you that I was asking jason this question, not you. Apparently that really bugged you since you keep bringing it up. You need to move on.

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
The point of the movie is not to offer up the facts as gospel. It is to get you to look at things from a different angle. To get you to question, to discuss, and most of all, become involved. And not take anyone's, even MM's, version.

But do you think it's okay to put lies in there when you're doing that? That just blows any credibility. How can people discuss when there are opinions based on lies? And people are walking away from this movie believing things that are patently false. That's indisputable. The evidence is on the numerous threads there have been on these boards.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by kbeverina
Oh for god's sake, grow up and debate the facts.

If Jenny doesn't want me to answer the question she posed to Brenda, she can politely tell me she asked Brenda, not me, and is not interested in whether or not I saw the movie.

I asked jason a question and you said, "He already answered you!" He hadn't and I told you that I was asking jason this question, not you. Apparently that really bugged you since you keep bringing it up. You need to move on.

Oh, come now. It doesn't "bother" me in the least but hypocrisy is very amusing, indeed! Especially when you made such a huge deal out of your perception that I answered for another individual!

And, as far as your "proof" that the Saudi's do not own 7%, well, that appears to be lacking. If it's so easily seen in the U.S. Census, why not quote or post a link???

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
Whom exactly has he exploited?

I would call this exploitation, as do the people in the articles:

The family of U.S. Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone was shocked to learn that video footage of the major's Arlington National Cemetery burial was included by Michael Moore in his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."

"We are furious that Greg was in that casket and cannot defend himself, and my sister, Greg's mother, is just beside herself," Miss Gallagher said. "She is furious. She called him a 'maggot that eats off the dead.' "
The movie, described by critics as political propaganda during an election year, shows video footage of the funeral and Maj. Stone's fiancee, Tammie Eslinger, kissing her hand and placing it on his coffin.
The family does not know how Mr. Moore obtained the video, and Miss Gallagher said they did not give permission and are considering legal recourse.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040712-101816-2160r.htm

Army reservist Peter Damon, the Brockton soldier who lost parts of both arms in the war in Iraq, was surprised to find out recently that he appears in the scathing anti-war film, "Fahrenheit 911," his wife said Wednesday.

The footage of Damon was taken from an interview he granted earlier this year to NBC Nightly News.

Jennifer Damon said she saw "Fahrenheit 911" on the Fourth of July, after learning her husband was shown in the film from John Gonsalves, founder of Homes For Our Troops, which is working to build the Damons a home.

Gonsalves said he learned of Peter's film appearance from a neighbor.

"I was shocked. I would have expected if Peter was in the movie that someone would have at least talked to him about it, which I thought was kind of unfair," Gonsalves said. "I think for Michael Moore to portray Peter in there without any knowledge is terrible."

Based on that [NBC] policy, it would have been up to Moore to get any needed clearance.

Gonsalves, who took part in a second interview NBC Nightly News conducted with Damon, said he did not sign any consent form for that interview. Gonsalves said the clip in the film is footage from a first interview NBC did with Damon.

"Unless NBC has a signed document granting them full rights, unless they had those rights, I would expect the filmmakers would want to go back to this guy and get his permission. Otherwise it's invasion of his privacy for this usage," Tobia said.

John Taylor Williams, co-chairman of the media and entertainment group at the Boston firm Fish & Richardson, agreed.

"If he didn't sign that, then he's got some fairly serious rights about its use," Williams said.

Both attorneys said the footage from NBC would not be considered part of the public domain.

http://enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2004/07/15/news/news/news02.txt

THUMBS DOWN TO filmmaker Michael Moore for using television footage of a wounded Army Reserve sergeant from Brockton to help make a case against the Iraq war in the movie "Fahrenheit 911." The film includes footage from an NBC interview with Peter Damon, who lost most of his right arm and his left arm above the wrist when a tire he was helping change on a Blackhawk helicopter in Iraq exploded on Oct. 21. Moore has every right to express his anti-war views through film, but using footage of Damon, who doesn't share his perspective, is crass exploitation. Moore has also been criticized by the family of Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone for using footage of the officer's funeral at Arlington Cemetery. Stone was killed in Iraq in 2003 when a grenade was thrown into his tent, allegedly by Sgt. Hasan Akbar, who is being tried for murder.

http://www.enterprise.southofboston.com/articles/2004/07/18/news/opinion/opinion01.txt

 

[kbeverina]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Oh, come now. It doesn't "bother" me in the least but hypocrisy is very amusing, indeed! Especially when you made such a huge deal out of your perception that I answered for another individual!

It does seem to bother you. You do keep bringing it up.

There's no hypocrisy there. I didn't make a huge deal at all. I simply said that I had asked jason a question and you jumped in and said that he'd answered it. He hadn't.

As you can see by my post, I made no attempt to answer for Brenda. I offered to answer as well, since jenny seemed to consider it relevant. Totally different scenario.

But you can keep bringing it up. And every single time I will point out your fallacy.

And, as far as your "proof" that the Saudi's do not own 7%, well, that appears to be lacking. If it's so easily seen in the U.S. Census, why not quote or post a link???

So you do believe it?

Okay, I'll get some links.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

This has basically degenerated into personal attacks
It's closed