If you've seen Fahrenheit 9/11, ask & discuss it here.

[Galahad]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Gulliver's Travels was written as political commentary, despite the fact that it was taken (at the time) for "entertainment purposes"...Why can't something be both ?

It surely can. The current movie about global warming is surely intended to be both entertainment and political commentary. It is not, however, billed as even a semi-factual examination of any current policy or politician. If you see the political commentary, great. If you don't, you are entertained. That is decidedly different than a light weight modern day "Triumph of the Will".

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by wvrevy
If the people criticizing the film had actually seen it and paid attention, Moore wouldn't have to explain himself.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Like I said before, the people confused seem to be the ones that saw the movie. I'm zeroing in on the "bin Laden flights" here.

From the San Francisco Chronicle's review of the film:

Although Moore doesn't uncover anything sinister, the sheer extent of this personal and financial connection comes as a surprise, and it fuels Moore's outrage that the bin Laden family was allowed to leave the United States without interrogation following Sept. 11.

From the Detroit Free Press review:

If your only news source is Fox and you were unaware of that -- or the accusation that Bush allowed members of bin Laden's family and other Saudis to fly out of the United States at a time U.S. citizens were grounded -- the movie should finally provoke a few questions.

From the Washington Post:

The film also claims that, after planes struck the World Trade Center in 2001, and there was a moratorium on all commercial flights around the country, the Bush administration helped many members of the wealthy bin Laden family evacuate the country -- by plane. The strong implication is that these evacuations were performed during the flight ban.

These respected, professional reviewers saw the film, right? And I expect that they paid attention. And yet apparently Moore needs to explain himself to them. What's the reason?

 

[Joeblack]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I'll defer to the Shakespear scholars, but did Shakespeare intend any of his historical plays to be "documentaries", or were they written purely for entertainment purposes?

He probably intended them for entertainment purposes AND to convey a message. Many artists have. Orson Welles comes to mind, and as much as he was attacked in his time, Citizen Kane remains one of the best and most influential films of all time.

Michael Moore might argue that Shakespeare wanted to question moral civic obligations or maybe even spark government change. Far-right winged "Slate" might argue that Michael Moore is lying because Shakespeare only wanted people to laugh or cry. Only Shakespeare and each one of the viewers of his plays will know what effect it had on him/her. What effect will Fahrenheit 911 have on November election? We'll see, but in film history, 2004 might become a landmark year when movie making became a politically influential media capable of regime change.

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Joeblack
Far-right winged "Slate"

Are you serious?

 

[faithinkarma]

Although Moore doesn't uncover anything sinister, the sheer extent of this personal and financial connection comes as a surprise, and it fuels Moore's outrage that the bin Laden family was allowed to leave the United States without interrogation following Sept. 11.

THE SHEER EXTENT OF THIS PERSONAL AND FINANCIAL CONNECTION COMES AS A SURPRISE

If your only news source is Fox and you were unaware of that -- or the accusation that Bush allowed members of bin Laden's family and other Saudis to fly out of the United States at a time U.S. citizens were grounded -- the movie should finally provoke a few questions.

THE MOVIE SHOULD FINALLY PROVOKE A FEW QUESTIONS

The film also claims that, after planes struck the World Trade Center in 2001, and there was a moratorium on all commercial flights around the country, the Bush administration helped many members of the wealthy bin Laden family evacuate the country -- by plane. The strong implication is that these evacuations were performed during the flight ban.

I'm sorry, where does it say this is untrue?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Jimbo
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Like I said before, the people confused seem to be the ones that saw the movie. I'm zeroing in on the "bin Laden flights" here.

From the San Francisco Chronicle's review of the film:From the Detroit Free Press review: From the Washington Post:
These respected, professional reviewers saw the film, right? And I expect that they paid attention. And yet apparently Moore needs to explain himself to them. What's the reason?

Well, apparently they WEREN'T paying attention, because the film very clearly states that they left the country after September 13th, not September 11th. Why did they get that wrong ? I don't know, you'd have to ask them.

The film asserts that several domestic flights were made - during the flight ban - to round up these Saudis, and that is without question a fact. It states that they were taken, on chartered flights, out of the country following September 13th. That, too, is without question a fact. What is so hard to understand about that ? Yes, Moore implies sinister motive behind that, and that is certainly debateable. But the facts are NOT in question. Period.

 

[Galahad]

Far-right winged "Slate"

Do you read "Slate"? Not really very right winged.

What effect will Fahrenheit 911 have on November election

Mostly MM is preaching to the Choir. Most people seeing the film have already decided how they will vote, won't vote at all, and already believed the general premise of the film. IMO, most people who claim to be going the the film "with an open mind" are not being honest. Therefore, I don't think it will have much effect.

 

[Joeblack]

Originally posted by Galahad
Do you read "Slate"? Not really very right winged.

Ok. Not "very" right winged compared to Mein Kampf but right winged nonetheless.

Originally posted by Galahad
Mostly MM is preaching to the Choir. Most people seeing the film have already decided how they will vote, won't vote at all, and already believed the general premise of the film. IMO, most people who claim to be going the the film "with an open mind" are not being honest. Therefore, I don't think it will have much effect.

I agree with the first part of your statement. A majority of the people who see the film have already made up their mind on who they will vote for. Those in the fence will be compelled to ask themselves some questions, change their vote or maybe even get out and vote. Will it have enough effect to change the results of the election? You don't think so. I think that unless there is a major event (another attack, God forbid, Bin Laden's capture, WMD found) it will. Come November we'll see.

 

[jason]

Originally posted by kbeverina
That's not how it happened. I asked a question directed to those who had seen the film. You responded:

That statement implies that you thought Bush was talking about al Qaeda, but doesn't outright say it. Rather than proceed on the implication, I wanted to clarify that this is what you were saying:

At that point ThreeCircles said:

And my response to that is, no jason didn't.

I asked those who'd seen the clip if they believed Bush was talking about al Qaeda in that clip. You did not directly answer that, as is shown above. I asked if you thought he was talking about al Qaeda. Your response was that you thought he was talking about terrorists, and aren't al Qaeda terrorists?

You next said that you did respond. I saw that. But you did not respond to my request for clarification on your statement. When I pushed for that, you evaded by saying, "What's the difference?"

Sorry, but big difference if the movie wants you to think Bush is talking about al Qaeda after 9/11 and he's really talking about a Palestinian terrorist act in Israel. I think your "What's the difference?" response is an evasion.

I'm pretty sure when you said a terrorist is a terrorist my point was pretty clear, but I'll answer your 2 questions again. #1 When I originally saw the movie I thought that W. was talking about terrorist. Question #2 I thought Bush was talking about terrorist. You can insert my own thoughts for me again if yoiu wish.

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Joeblack
Ok. Not "very" right winged compared to Mein Kampf but right winged nonetheless.

Slate's been edited until recently by Michael Kingsley, who used to sign off on TV with "I'm Michael Kingsley, from the Left." Now the editor is Jacob Weisberg, author of "George W. Bushisms." It's main contributor is Timothy Noah, who admitted that he had only voted for a Republican once in his life. And that was in a primary, just so he could cause problems for Reagan.

Overall, I think they're fairly even handed (mostly), but with a basis toward the left. What you said is total nonsense.

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by Galahad
I disagree that MM wants to increase debate. Like any propagandist, he simply wants as many people as possible to believe what he says and/or disbelieve what his subjects say. I also disagree that MM is remotely an "artist" in the vein of Shakespeare or virtually anybody else you can name. Somewhere last century "art" and "politics" somehow became synonomous......that as long as someone was making enough noise about something political, that it was obviously art even if it was terrible.

If you're interested in discussing what is or isn't art, I'd be delighted (not provoking, just being sincere). This is something I do nine months our of the year with my students. I think you'll be hard pressed to find evidence for what is terrible or not- art is very subjective, and critics have been working on this question for a while. But perhaps that's best left to another thread.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by rcyannacci
If you're interested in discussing what is or isn't art, I'd be delighted (not provoking, just being sincere). This is something I do nine months our of the year with my students. I think you'll be hard pressed to find evidence for what is terrible or not- art is very subjective, and critics have been working on this question for a while. But perhaps that's best left to another thread.

Perhaps it is for another thread and there are also multiple ways to look at the question. I've done my share of humanities and art history and contend that it is indeed possible to identify "bad" art.

My objection though is to the more recent trend that mix art and politics in a very non-uplifting way. Art to reflect the human condition is one thing. Art created with the intent to affect immediate social change as in the outcome of an election or the incitement of war isn't art at all but propaganda. It may be fairly artistic propaganda, But being "artistic" and being "art" are not synonymous.

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by dmadman43
I'll defer to the Shakespear scholars, but did Shakespeare intend any of his historical plays to be "documentaries", or were they written purely for entertainment purposes?

I'm far from a Shakespeare scholar, but I have some familiarity. Even if I were an "expert," it would be hard to prove original intentions.

Here's what I know: a decree from Elizabeth I during the first year of her reign demanded that plays refrain from directly addressing any religious or political subjects (she was trying to supress riots that had been known to happen around controversial plays). If the playhouses wanted to stay open, they couldn't write anything with overt contemporary references. Since they had lost financial support from the churches (no more religious plays, theatre professional had to attract a large paying audience, and to do that they needed to produce plays that engaged the public's imagination and interest. So political topics were engaged all the time, but were cloaked in references to past kings and queens. It's safe to assume that audiences well understood the contemporary relevance. Did they think of them as history? Again, likely. No many citizens of London were literate, there were no public libraries anyway, theatre was one of the primary vehicles for learning a shared national history.

Shakespeare was not only a playwright; he was an actor and shareholder in his company. In other words, he had a vested financial interest in the success of his plays, and so he likely gave audiences what they wanted. This seems so crass or "Hollywood" to us today. And when detractors attribute these same actions to MM, he's labeled insincere (or worse). What's so interesting to me is how incredibly successful this film has been to date. MM is taping into the same political interests that audiences have craved for centuries.

Is preaching to the choir a bad thing? Maybe not. It can bring a community together around a set of shared political interests and give them the confidence to act on thier beliefs. That's a powerful thing.

 

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The film also claims that, after planes struck the World Trade Center in 2001, and there was a moratorium on all commercial flights around the country, the Bush administration helped many members of the wealthy bin Laden family evacuate the country -- by plane. The strong implication is that these evacuations were performed during the flight ban.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry, where does it say this is untrue?

MM's website, which says ""After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24."

According to wvrevy, you apparently weren't paying attention.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Galahad
Art created with the intent to affect immediate social change as in the outcome of an election or the incitement of war isn't art at all but propaganda.

Are you kidding me?

Art, by its very definition, is an expression and a mode of communication. Art seeks to document, illustrate, persuade, decorate, and/or redefine reality.

To say that artistic expression isn't art if it seeks to affect social change is not only ridiculous but down right silly.

Have you ever considered the following:

Executions of the Third of May, 1808 by Francisco Goya
Liberty Leading the People, 1830 by Eugene Delacroix
The Battle Hymn of the Republic by Julia Ward Howe
How the Other Half Lives by Jacob A. Riis
Three Soliders by John Dos Passos
Petition to Congress by Mark Twain
The National AIDS Quilt

Just to name a few!

To say that art does not seek to impact the human condition and current society borders on ignorance.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Are you kidding me?

Art, by its very definition, is an expression and a mode of communication. Art seeks to document, illustrate, persuade, decorate, and/or redefine reality.

To say that artistic expression isn't art if it seeks to affect social change is not only ridiculous but down right silly.

Have you ever considered the following:

Executions of the Third of May, 1808 by Francisco Goya
Liberty Leading the People, 1830 by Eugene Delacroix
The Battle Hymn of the Republic by Julia Ward Howe
How the Other Half Lives by Jacob A. Riis
Three Soliders by John Dos Passos
Petition to Congress by Mark Twain
The National AIDS Quilt

Just to name a few!

To say that art does not seek to impact the human condition and current society borders on ignorance.

I am not kidding you. Please re-read the post. I know art seeks to impact the human condition. But none of the art you list above is a campaign commercial. They hope that people will start to think about the human condition and be lead, by virtue of their thinking and contemplation, to take actions. That is vastly different that MM work. He doesn't want people to think at all.

Nor did I say: that artistic expression isn't art if it seeks to affect social change.

Of course that is what are does, among other things. I said that if it is created to affect an immediate action (i.e. go vote for X, go burn down that synagogue) then it isn't art but propoganda....and ugly to boot.

Do you then believe that the latest campaign commercials by candidates are art? For that is ALL that F 9/11 is.

Now please re-read my post. I have not deigned to call people that disagree with me ignorant and you can't make a case that my position is without careful consideration.

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Art, by its very definition, is an expression and a mode of communication. Art seeks to document, illustrate, persuade, decorate, and/or redefine reality.

To say that artistic expression isn't art if it seeks to affect social change is not only ridiculous but down right silly.

Have you ever considered the following:

Executions of the Third of May, 1808 by Francisco Goya
Liberty Leading the People, 1830 by Eugene Delacroix
The Battle Hymn of the Republic by Julia Ward Howe
How the Other Half Lives by Jacob A. Riis
Three Soliders by John Dos Passos
Petition to Congress by Mark Twain
The National AIDS Quilt
[/B]

Thank you. Great points. Guernica by Pablo Picasso also comes to mind. Or even the wartime cartoons by Walt Disney.

 

[ThreeCircles]

I did indeed re-read your original post and stand by my assertion that the ideas you present border on ignorance.

Case example are the two following posts by you:

Art created with the intent to affect immediate social change as in the outcome of an election or the incitement of war isn't art at all but propaganda.

Nor did I say: that artistic expression isn't art if it seeks to affect social change.

Of course that is what are does, among other things. I said that if it is created to affect an immediate action (i.e. go vote for X, go burn down that synagogue) then it isn't art but propoganda....and ugly to boot.

Perhaps you should look into some of the works that I posted. Specifically the painting by Goya, Three Soldiers, and Mark Twain's work. I can most assuredly tell you that the artists wanted to incite change in society and they wanted to do so immediately.

Innumerable works of art are "created with the intent to affect immediate social change." Try reading some of the literature produced by Thoreau and Whitman. Or better yet, some of the writings produced by King.

To suggest that such-and-such isn't "art" because it has political over-tones is, well, ignorant.

Thomas Paine's Common Sense is a prime example.

I suggest you take a class in the humanities. Or even a quick trip to your local library.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by rcyannacci
If you're interested in discussing what is or isn't art, I'd be delighted (not provoking, just being sincere). This is something I do nine months our of the year with my students. I think you'll be hard pressed to find evidence for what is terrible or not- art is very subjective, and critics have been working on this question for a while. But perhaps that's best left to another thread.

Look MM is free to make whatever "art" he wants. But, to pawn it off as a documentary is simply making a mockery of documentaries. It's fine if he wants to pawn it off as a political hatchet piece designed to bring down the Bush administration. More power to him. But, I take issue with him positioning it as something that it is not. "JFK" was not a documentary and North never positioned it as such. It was simply his view of the Kennedy assasination. I'm sure there were many people that viewed what they saw in there as an accurate portrayal of the events surrounding JFK's assassination. It wasn't. Same with "F9/11". It's NOT a documentary. If it's like any other MM movie, it a collage of sometimes unrelated footages pieced together to make the viewer THINK what he is seeing is accurate. Again, if that's the genre of movie he wants to make, that's fine. A lot of people liked "*******:The Movie", too. I'm sure some thought that was art. Thankfully, the only art experience I have is having a painted turtle once when I was a kid.

 

[dmadman43]

And yeah, I'd duck that 9/11 commission thing too, if I were you

Just to be clear, I'm not ducking it, just saying it's not relevant to this thread. There is plenty of stuff coming out of the 9/11 commission to make both sides feel uncomfortable.