Driss-A-Blog

Avi--

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one.

Re. F9/11 "winning an award in France"--I have news for you, the bulk of the jury which awarded it the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival was American, and the president of the jury was none other than Quentin Tarintino, who isn't exactly known for his liberal, pacifist views.

Re. Hizbollah "giving him money to distribute the film"--do you have a source for this? The film was originally financed by Disney/Miramax (headed by Michael Eisner and the Weinstein brothers respectively, all of whom are Jewish). It was bought out by the Weinsteins, who are donating the bulk of the profits to charity, and is being distributed by Lions Gate Films, a Canadian company and the Fellowship Adventure Group. If you have evidence of terrorist financing, feel free to present it.

Re. F9/11 "not being a documentary"--the technical definition of a documentary is "A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration."

Now, the one part of that definition which you may have a legitimate beef with here is "in a factual manner". There is much of F9/11 which is factual. There is much which is Moore's opinion. Having seen the film, I can state that he separates the two *very* clearly in the vast majority of instances.

There *are* a few areas in which the distinction is a bit fuzzy. There are also a few factual points made which are open to debate--for which Moore has a large section of his website devoted to responding to, with full disclosure and full source referencing.

Finally, you seem to be under the impression that documentaries are "supposed" to be "objective", which is nonsense. *Every* documentary has a point of view, some just present theirs more strongly than others. In the case of F9/11, Moore is *very* clear and upfront that his film is not "fair" or "balanced"; he has an agenda and is quite clear about it. However, the Bush administration has had 3 years of coddling from the press, which is *supposed* to be "fair" and "balanced" but which has miserably failed in this regard, so I see nothing wrong with a perspective being given from the other side of the fence.

One final point: Have you personally seen the film? If not, you're no better than the people who hooted & hollared against The Last Temptation of Christ as being "Jewish blasphemy", when, in fact, it turned out to be an interesting (if poorly-cast) look at the concept of the Jesus figure struggling with the idea of living a mortal life. The irony was that "Christians" were outraged by this idea, while as a Jew, I personally thought it made *true* Christianity more sympathetic and positive. To each his own.

If you're gonna call someone a "disgrace as a person, as an American and as a filmmaker", you should be prepared to back up your bluster.

Charles:

Shira wrote this, not me. I'll let her comment.

Avi

Avi--

(nod) My apologies, sir; I didn't realize it was Shira who wrote it until (ironically) she inadvertantly e-mailed a response to *me* which was meant for *you*!

She and I have exchanged messages to this effect, and I will address any further discussion of this issue directly to her (unless you feel like chiming in yourself, of course).

Again, my apologies for the error.

Did you guys see the movie yet? I just saw it. I thought that it was pretty terrible. The audio was mixed pretty cheesily, and the video was often of poor quality - very cheap looking... and Moore just couldn't resist cheap showing of blood and guts and crying mothers. Pretty propagandistic - not very entertaining, a big fat waste of money for me. I recommend that you see it - but try to find a BitTorrent link to pirate it. It's not worth paying for, especially as Moore might be going to spend that money on terrorist organizations (as fat as he is, I'd suspect fries and beer instead....)

Not that I dispute the facts - I don't, really - nor the conclusions - Moore didn't really make any, other than the obvious stuff like that war is bad, rich people have more power than poor people. And he doesn't like Bush. Well, many people don't like Bush. I sure don't like him very much.

You may wonder why Moore isn't in jail. In many countries, he would be. But I can't see how making a movie is a crime - and the day that the US starts jailing people for making movies is the day it falls. It'll be a Republic only in name, a free country only as an empty slogan. We're supposed to be able to tolerate a fat man with a camera who goes around annoying the chairman of General Motors, the NRA, and even the President himself. It's about accountability - if our leaders are not accountable for their actions, then they are tyrants. The whole point of the US is that it's not a tyranny. That's why it was founded - that's why all our families came here.

So Hizbollah likes F911? Well, Hezbollah will have nasty ideas no matter what, and they will see movies that they like whatever we do. But maybe it's a good thing for them to see F911, maybe it will make them think - it's not just an anti-Bush movie and an anti-war movie, but it's also an anti-Saudi movie! And sure, the Saudi royals may be under threat from Wahabi nutsos, but they're also sending lots of checks to poor Arab families who turn their children into human bombs. So any movie that ties the Saudis to Bush just might make these guys (who hate Bush, and also hate us, and hate everyone who isn't just like them) wonder just what the people who pay them to blow themselves up are really like! And that can't be a bad thing. Michael Moore is nobody's cheerleader. He's a fat jerk who points that camera at everyone, and good may yet come of it.

Besides, you know, if Hezbollah says the Earth is round doesn't make it square, and if Einstein had been an axe murderer it wouldn't affect the truth or falsity of his theories. Good old Aristotle - this is one of his fallacies. We can't judge the truth of Moore's movies or books by judging the people he associates with, or by judging anything else about his personal life.

As far as the points Moore makes, I think that they're mostly valid. Congressmen not reading bills? Sure, that's something we ought to be more vigilant about if we want to have any rights left at all. It isn't just about the Patriot Act, but about everything - every year more and more unread laws get passed - who wrote them? Who knows? I rather dislike Conyers, who spoke to Moore about this issue, I think he's a totalitarian asshole, but hey at least he admits passing laws he doesn't read. Moore did a good job there, I think.

Bush being clueless while our country is under attack, sitting in a classroom like a jacklighted deer, then running off to a secret location like a coward? Moore is right - that's not how a leader should act. And he got video, always a good way to show it.

Bush and the Saudi royals being buddies? Well, he is an oilman. It's not all THAT unbelievable.

The Senate deciding not to contest a very dirty, messed up election? True. That actually happened. Moore just happened to show video of it... but the fact is that Bush isn't elected. He's appointed. The US has had lots of unelected Presidents - like Ford, Johnson, people like that... Bush is one of them. And I'm not the only person who worries that next time, will my vote actually be counted? It's an important issue. Even if presented by a fat jerk with a camera.

Moore observes Bush pandering to rich donors - has it on tape - and that's fact too. He's a Republican, that's what they do!

None of this is even surprising, when you take away the layers of Moore's spin. Moore may have some crazy opinions, and some crazy ways of expressing them, but he's not saying anything unreasonable as fact.

In conclusion, I don't know how you feel exactly, but I wonder if maybe you don't like Moore because it seems like he's attacking America. I don't think he is. It seems to me that Bush's ideas on fighting terror are not necessarily the best - we didn't get attacked like that under Clinton, after all! And Bush's economic and social ideas - they're fine if you happen to be a billionaire or a serious Christian, but that's not me or you or most people. I'm going to vote Kerry, because I don't like Bush. Moore really hates Bush. But I love America just the same, even though I hate Bush, and I think that Moore does too. He's no traitor, he's not deliberately trying to undermine our country, but he honestly thinks that we'd be better off under new management. And that's protected free speech, any way you look at it.

... I don't know, I still don't think I would ever pay money to see a Michael Moore film.

"However, the Bush administration has had 3 years of coddling from the press, which is *supposed* to be 'fair' and 'balanced' but which has miserably failed in this regard, so I see nothing wrong with a perspective being given from the other side of the fence."

I believe Your assertion that the Bush administration has been coddled by the press for the past 3 years is misguided. Traditional conservative news sources such as Fox News and the Wallstreet Journal (I am sure you can name other examples) have certainly presented news stories and editorials that support the adminsitrations policies. However, you fail to mention that there are also many media outlets on the left, such as ABC, CNN the NY Times and LA Times, which have blasted the Bush administration and have been anything but "fair and balanced" towards the administration's policies. I think that what it all boils down to is that the presentation and support of the current administration's policies will depend on the political slant of the particular publication.

-Jeff