Some interesting information:
Moore's an Eagle Scout.
See
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0704-05.htm
>
>NEW YORK - As a young boy, I loved the American flag. I'd lead my
>younger sisters in patriotic parades up and down the sidewalk, waving
>the flag, blowing a whistle and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance over
>and over until my sisters begged me to let them go back to their
>Easy-Bake Oven.
>
>I loved singing the national anthem. I won an essay contest on "What
the
>Flag Means to Me." I decorated my bicycle with little American flags
for
>a Fourth of July parade and won a prize for that too. I became an Eagle
>Scout and proudly promised to do my duty to God and country.
>
Some more interesting information:
See
http://www.indiewire.com/onthescene/onthescene_040702docs.html
"Of course it's a documentary, it's a non-fiction film, it's a
documentary," emphasized Michael Moore, during a conference call with a
group of journalists earlier this week. "Documentaries by their very
nature are supposed to have a point of view. The word has also been used
over the years -- from 'NBC White Paper' to any of a number of forms of
documentary. My form of doc is an op-ed piece. It presents my opinion
that's based on fact. I am trying to present a view of the last
three-and-a-half years that I don't feel has been presented to the
American public."
"Yes, 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is a doc," noted Ira Deutchman, an indie veteran
who was a founder of Fine Line Features, "Michael Moore is just pushing
the envelope further away from the pretense of reality that people
usually associate with documentaries."
Morgan Spurlock agreed, saying, "Many people have seemed to jump on the
bandwagon that once a documentary becomes subjective or presents an
obvious point of view from the director then it is no longer a
documentary. I do not agree, for I believe that the very act of
filmmaking, whether fictional or non-fictional, is filled with
subjective decisions made on the part of the director for the betterment
of his/her piece. Just because you are presenting facts and crafting an
honest storyline does not completely remove the involvement of one's
viewpoint from a project... we knowingly make decisions in the edit room
that can effect the audience's reaction."
Chisholm" director Lynch said, "It is a documentary that is a well
structured and thought provoking story. Rather than being contextual in
approach, it is dialoguing with Americans that have a context for
understanding 9/11, the Iraq War, and the Bush administration. I think
Michael Moore's motivation is that he believes Americans are not being
given the whole story. The documentary is meant to fill in the gaps. In
other words, the audience is bringing a lot to the table in terms of the
broader context for a fuller understanding."
SXSW's Dentler had this to say: "It's also borderline propaganda, just
like a newspaper's endorsement for a politician during an election. No
matter how important I feel the message is, and no matter how much I
agree with it, it's hard to look at the film as objective." Dentler
added that he liked the film and agreed that it is a documentary.
"Historical documentaries or 'talking head' pieces should tell both
sides of the story, both sides of the history. And, in a sense,
'Fahrenheit' tries to portray itself as a historical doc, but it's
really closer to propaganda. I think a very key point of this is how the
film credits Michael Moore as the writer, a credit (that) documentaries
rarely feature."
Braun said, "'Fahrenheit 9/11' is a documentary like 'Super Size Me' and
'*******' are documentaries. They are non-fiction narrative films that
skillfully manipulate reality for the sake of truth, entertainment, and
a satisfying narrative structure, not always in that order."
and another joke:
http://tomburka.com/
July 03, 2004
"Fahrenheit 9/11" Not Even About Temperature, Say Republicans
Conservatives across the country are complaining vehemently about what
they called "the countless and innumerable inaccuracies" of Michael
Moore's documentary and polemic film, "Fahrenheit 9/11."
"For one thing, the title is intensely misleading," said Spartelby Fisk,
a Republican gnome. "It has nothing to do with heat. It's a crock."
Fisk said that the film is a travesty. "For one thing, early in the
film, President Bush moves in slow motion. President Bush has never
moved in slow motion. This is just an out-and-out lie."
At several points Bush is shown in freeze frame. "He's never been that
motionless," said Fisk. "This film is utterly dishonest."
Fisk also derided Moore for depicting Bush as "pasty" and "beady-eyed,"
and oft-times blurry and out-of-focus. "The President has always been
distinct and clearly-defined," said Fisk.
In a private conversation, Karl Rove was heard to disagree. "I would
never allow President Bush to be seen clearly by the American people.
Good lord, how would I ever get anybody to vote for him?"
