Christopher Hitchens (a card-carrying Libbie from way back) had the opposite reaction to yours.
Here are just a few excerpts from his review at http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2102723/ . There is much more detail at the link. I suggest anyone thinking of spending seven hard-earned after tax dollars on Moore's distortions and opinions take the few minutes required to read the entire review.
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bavery.
and
He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore's triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush's former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that?as you might expect?Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that's another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic "key to all mythologies."
and
A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims.
and
I have already said that Moore's film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it's much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex," and the use of "spin" in the presentation of our politicians. It's high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There's more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn't know that.
and
Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He'll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.
and
Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your "narrative" a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don't even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft.
and
Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:
The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States ?
And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.
And this review is from Christopher Hitchens -- a Lefty from way back who recently lambasted the press for fawning over Ronald Reagan (see http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2101842/ "The Stupidity of Ronald Reagan"), and who also to this day characterizes Henry Kissinger as the Anti-Christ. This isn't Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter reviewing the movie, folks, this is a guy who makes his living writing columns for Lefty-Libbie publications such as Vanity Fair and The Nation.
There's quite a bit more at the link for those who want a more thorough examination of just how ghastly this latest Moore film really is. By all means watch it if that's what turns your crank. Just don't expect any insight (or even many facts) from the experience.
And although the following two points have nothing directly to do with the content of this latest Moore mockumentary, they are indicative of Moore's tactics:
1) He didn't even have the courtesy to ask Ray Bradbury, the author of Fahrenheit 451, if Bradbury was okay with Moore's ripoff of the title. Bradbury is (unsurprisingly) not a happy camper. See http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040619/D83A0PJ00.html
2) His dishonesty in accepting the Academy award for his mockumentary "Bowling for Columbine" was just downright low. He deprived the makers of the real best documentary of the year of their rightful due. This is contemptible behavior. But then Moore is a contemptible being.
pinky
--------------------
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Phishgrrl 
Ripple 
Edit 
Reply 
You need to see this movie. Of course Moore will make money on it, I hope he makes plenty so he can keep writing books and making movies to educate people. If you look at him you will see that he cares VERY MUCH about his country, his people and the world. He is a very altruistic human being. I love him.
1 2 all )
shirley knott
onetime
myc_check1212
404
FractalDust
Slooch
Visionary Tools