F 9/11 -- Good News, Bad News

[billvon 3,120]

>I am questioning that a documentary should be presenting all the
>facts, not like f911 did, and one major issue with the newspaper
>headlines I may add.

No documentary can present all the facts in 90 minutes (or even 180 minutes.) There was a lot cut out of even the original F9/11. The director cuts what he chooses and puts in what he chooses; that's what makes it a documentary and not CSPAN.

>Although I do agree that a political documentary will have bias, but
> usually it includes the good tha bad and the ugly...just refer to any
> histroy channel actual documentary and bio's.

When I was in school, I saw a few documentaries that showed the American Indians as a savage race who were (thankfully) slaughtered by peace-loving settlers. Howard Zinn presents a very different view, and I tend to believe him over the made-in-the-50's version we saw. But that didn't make it not a documentary; it just made it a biased one.

[juanesky 0]

Well, lets show all those documentaries then. Include also the one of the master race would you?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[billvon 3,120]

>Well, lets show all those documentaries then. Include also the
>one of the master race would you?

All available via Amazon; buy whichever you like (or none.) Freedom's a bitch, ain't it?

[juanesky 0]

No it is not. It is great indeed. That is why I relish that i have the decision to just purge false documentaries from real ones, and yet do so with a grain of salt.

Once a film has lies in it, stops being a documentary.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Zenister 0]

your opinion does not change any fact. no matter who, or how it is presented, or the accuracy of other claims made.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

No it is not. It is great indeed. That is why I relish that i have the decision to just purge false documentaries from real ones, and yet do so with a grain of salt.

Once a film has lies in it, stops being a documentary.

EXACTLY.

There is a huge difference -- which billvon and others are not granting -- between trying to put forth what you honestly believe is a factual, unbiased-as-possible film that depicts reality as it is, and an intentionally biased "factoid" film that uses deliberate misinformation in order to push an agenda or instill a particular viewpoint in the viewer.

When you tell what you believe to be the truth, you are a documentarist.

When you lie, you are a propagandist.

It's really quite as simple as that.

People say, "Oh, but it's impossible to not have your own bias in your documentary, even when you try to be objective. After all, you decide the overall subject of the film, i.e. "the mating habits of the blue-footed booby," versus "The American Military-Industrial Complex." After you pick a subject, you decide whom to interview, whom to quote, whom to discuss, what to discuss, and so on. If you decide to embellish facts, give overwhelming airtime to alleged facts and supporters of one side of an issue, and then selectively include the opposition in scenes where they make funny faces or fumble their words or otherwise cherry pick scenes in which they don't look believable, you are not being an unbiased documentarist, you are grinding an axe, forwarding an agenda, creating propaganda.

THAT'S why Michael Moore is not a documentarist.

I always thought of documentaries as the films where the guy with the British accent says stuff like, "As winter approaches, the bear gorges itself on as many fruits, berries and nuts as it can, in anticipation of the long sleep until springtime, when she will emerge to look for a mate." That kind of thing is what should win the documentary awards. It's informative, instructional, and what kind of fuckin' agenda could someone possibly have to advance in such a film??

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Botellines 0]

Quote

When you tell what you believe to be the truth, you are a documentarist.

Not really, if it was so, F 9/11 would truly be a documentary. Who tells you that MM doesn´t believe what he is saying?
Besides MM admits it is a biased documentary which purpose is to get Bush out of the white house. You cannot get more honest than that

Quote

When you lie, you are a propagandist.

But he is not lieing. If you show up on TV and say a lie about someone you can be sued. And don´t tell me Bush is not suing him out of kindness of heart. Bush cannot sue because he cannot prove MM is lieing. Okay, i will concede that he doesn´t tell all the truth, but what he does tell is not a lie. Maybe he does use some dirty tricks at some point like the newspaper thing, but it doesn´t mean he is lieing, and certainly does not invalidate the rest of the movie.

Quote

It's really quite as simple as that.

indeed it is.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Listen Bill, I am not questioning MM's subject. I am questioning that a documentary should be presenting all the facts, not like f911 did, and one major issue with the newspaper headlines I may add.

You will find precious few movies or books in the political realm that meet that definition. Even if it were possible to address every fact and point of view, the point of publishing is to present a thesis. Not to do a montage of "on the other hand..."

The application of McCain-Feingold to any possible airing on TV is an interesting question. However, I thought the point of that POS legislation was that the media itself was still allowed to do anything. You and I, otoh, can't say a thing. Doesn't really matter - it sounds like Moore is merely baiting the Right. Or trying to boost DVD sales.

[crozby 0]

Quote

No it is not. It is great indeed. That is why I relish that i have the decision to just purge false documentaries from real ones, and yet do so with a grain of salt.

Once a film has lies in it, stops being a documentary.

Have you even seen Moore's documentary, or are you just another F9/11 wuffo giving us the benefit of his inexperience?

[juanesky 0]

I don't need to see his work to know that it is just propaganda, not a documentary, Just like I do not need to see or pay for something I do not see purpose of. I'll watch it only if it's free.

You may not be aware, but his previous crap is just as abhorrent and mindless one sided account of issues that are complicated, and he only portrays one side, his. In BFC he just misleads people to say the NRA was just happy of what happened in Columbine, also that you can go to a bank, open an account and get a rifle as advertised in 20 min. That is just deflamatory and dishonest portray of his truth. He forgets to mention that regardless your credentials will go trough a background search by FBI and local police.

No thanks, I do not need to see it to know it is all anti bush, and not because of the subject, but from experience on his past work. A documentary is to actually present all sides of the coin, just like when you see those about Cuba, they show everything, and interview both sides, the ones pro-castro and the ones who want to get rid of him. Takes on the people, how they live and do things around, yet they allow you to decide at the end. Hardly the case with his "documentaries".

Bottom line you are missing the point that since he is so biased and reknwon Bush hater, it is already compromised by that fact, and his previous work ethics. In previous posts I have pointed about the part where he uses "FALSE NEWS HEADLINES" to back up some of his points, yet no onw will comment on that.

I do not need to watch Nazi master race documentaries to know that they are not such. Do I?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[jazzjumper 0]

Quote

Michael Moore has decided to NOT submit Fahrenheit 911 for Best Documentary at this year's Oscars.

I'll let them read the "bad" news HERE.

Bad news? I think it's hilarious. He'll be lucky to make the cut (and if so, only because of the political slant...not because of the actually done anything artistically appealing.) Basically I think he is preempting what he knows will be a pass on this years academy awards.

I think the left will react more aggressively to what happens with "The Passion of the Christ".

No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is
sick of her shit!

[Botellines 0]

Quote

I don't need to see his work to know that it is just propaganda, not a documentary, Just like I do not need to see or pay for something I do not see purpose of. I'll watch it only if it's free.

You need to watch the movie in order to give your opinion about it. Unless you do, anything you say it is just hearsay

Quote

You may not be aware, but his previous crap is just as abhorrent and mindless one sided account of issues that are complicated, and he only portrays one side, his. In BFC he just misleads people to say the NRA was just happy of what happened in Columbine, also that you can go to a bank, open an account and get a rifle as advertised in 20 min. That is just deflamatory and dishonest portray of his truth. He forgets to mention that regardless your credentials will go trough a background search by FBI and local police.

Did you see the first one? at no point it sais that the NRA was happy with what happened in Columbine. You are just trying to mislead anyone who has not seen it yet (like what MM does accoriding to you)
Aparently, it is true that you could get the rifle in 20 minutes in that bank. That your background gets checked afterwards (or in the moment for that matter) don´t change the fact that in 20 minutes you have a rifle.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Offtopic: I think people who think BFC was anti-gun missed the point, to me it was much more anti-media (and appropriately so).

Nonetheless it's amusing to hear Juane comment on a movie he hasn't seen. I've not seen F911, dunno if I will, but I'm not about to sit here and tell you the content on the movie when all I have to go on is critics reviews, or people with a vested interest in either "side".

Watch it, then comment on it, and do so with a clear mind, till then it's just useless rambling. Same goes for anyone slagging Fareinhype 911 - watch it, then talk about it (if it's even out yet?)

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[juanesky 0]

Well, Ian, I do not know why would you be amused about commenting on a movie that clearly has one topic withstanding, the use of fake newspaper headlines, Distorted facts and calling it a "documentary", not putting the contents of thoughts and rebuttals from all sides involved. Just quick-frames with controlled portion of speeches to fit his twisted point of view. The reviews accross, some bad-long and boring and few good ravings, I still will believe is not worth spending the $20 + to sit in that. Just like watching yet another Godzilla movie.

I have again no problems if he likes to do that for living, just don't deliver his movie as "documentary". I have every right to think poorly of his job, after watching 2 of his past works, I just simply don't like him. Is that is something that ammusing? I think that with all the hype we already have in our daily lives, with terrorists, politics, yet should you keep spending more money for a crappy "pseudo documentary". I think not, I want to go to enjoy it.

About his BFC, I think he was just cashing in some dough from others people suffering. Sad deal. Do something constructive, if you are scolding the media, do so, don't pretend to be using the NRA half assed speeches cuts as trying to portray something it does not stand for. And as for the parents, maybe instead of faulting the movies industries, we should held parents responsible as well...

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[quade 4]

Quote

I don't know that I can honestly agree with you on this, Quade...not just pedantic rhetoric, but a fundamental disagreement honestly arrived at.

And I guess one for which we'll never have an "official" answer for since he decided not to submit it and the judges won't therefore rule on.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

And I guess one for which we'll never have an "official" answer for since he decided not to submit it and the judges won't therefore rule on.

Convienient, no?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Well, Ian, I do not know why would you be amused about commenting on a movie that clearly has one topic withstanding, the use of fake newspaper headlines, Distorted facts and calling it a "documentary", not putting the contents of thoughts and rebuttals from all sides involved.

It's amusing that you haven't seen it, yet you're an expert on it's content. You could be right, I don't know, I haven't seen it.

Quote

I have again no problems if he likes to do that for living, just don't deliver his movie as "documentary". I have every right to think poorly of his job, after watching 2 of his past works, I just simply don't like him. Is that is something that ammusing?

Yes, it's amusing for the reasons stated above. If you've seen 2 of his works, your opinion on those carries merit (you've seen it), on this it does not, you haven't seen it.

Quote

About his BFC, I think he was just cashing in some dough from others people suffering. Sad deal. Do something constructive, if you are scolding the media, do so, don't pretend to be using the NRA half assed speeches cuts as trying to portray something it does not stand for.

He may have been cashing in on people suffering (of course you could argue that the RNC in New York was doing the same with 9/11 - who knows?) BUT I took away something thought provoking from BFC about the media. I didn't come away with an anti-gun sense at all. It's all perspective I suppose. Nonetheless I'm not about to discount someones entire work because they believe things I don't. Most times when entering with an open mind, some other things you never thought about are encountered. That was BFC for me. There was a lot I didn't agree with, but if I come away with ONE thing to think about that I hadn't considered before then it wasn't a waste of my time and money.

Blues,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[crozby 0]

Quote

I don't need to see his work to know that it is just propaganda, not a documentary, Just like I do not need to see or pay for something I do not see purpose of. I'll watch it only if it's free.

If you had no experience of skydiving except what some skydive hating people told you, would you consider yourself an authority on skydiving?

Having a strong opinion on something you've never seen, when the whole point of the thing is, well, to be seen, is pretty far out in my view.

Do you have strong opinions of music you haven't heard also, or would that just be silly?

[juanesky 0]

Ok Ian, fair enough, I think we are not talking about the same thing here.

Just pretend that I as a viewer go to see MM Swoop a pond. Now, you know I am not a swooper, but that does not mean I would not watch anyone swooping. Yet, I discovered that he is unsafe, and has disregards for the safety of others. I definitely would not like to watch knowing for sure that there are high probabilities he will get a lot titanium, and maybe hurt somebody else.

Would you? Hey it's your preference.

As the debate about his work is about being it a documentary, I hardly see them as such. His work, while make you aware of somethings, most of it (subjectively) are just yellow sensationalism. Who are the real culprits of BFC, who are the real Culprits for 9/11. I don't see his work as provocative or satisfactory enough to shell out $$ to see it.

I rather see documentaries such as the ones created by Thomas Friedman, who really tries to put all perspectives in the table, and gives all parties time to refute, or National Geographic.

The RNC job's was about the pres elections. To make sure people know where he stands on issues. He has made clear that he will fight terrorism, maybe not as many of us would like to, but he will not wait for the UN to make up their mind. That is his job. On the other hand, what is MM's Job? Market dreams. 2 very different agendas.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[juanesky 0]

Pal, I did not have to watch Ishtar to know it was a bad movie.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[juanesky 0]

Does that mean that you will go to hear a recital by the Queen, and not know before hand it will be just plain boring?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

I don't need to see his work to know that it is just propaganda, not a documentary, Just like I do not need to see or pay for something I do not see purpose of. I'll watch it only if it's free.

If you had no experience of skydiving except what some skydive hating people told you, would you consider yourself an authority on skydiving?

Having a strong opinion on something you've never seen, when the whole point of the thing is, well, to be seen, is pretty far out in my view.

Do you have strong opinions of music you haven't heard also, or would that just be silly?

I equate what MM calls a documentary (Or any of his work) to that of Scott Zutz's interview on Real TV.
It has the same amount of truth to it.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,120]

>When you lie, you are a propagandist.

Moore _is_ a propagandist who produced a documentary. No matter what political advantages you would gain by being able to claim it's not a documentary, you can't change the dictionary to suit your whims.

>I always thought of documentaries as the films where the guy with the
> British accent says stuff like, "As winter approaches, the bear gorges itself
> on as many fruits, berries and nuts as it can, in anticipation of the long
>sleep until springtime, when she will emerge to look for a mate." That
> kind of thing is what should win the documentary awards. It's informative,
>instructional, and what kind of fuckin' agenda could someone possibly
> have to advance in such a film??

I suspect you've never seen "silent spring." There have been oodles of anti-development, anti-coal, anti-pollution, anti-whatever nature films that showcase the animals (even the cute bear cubs gorging themselves on berries) that will be killed by the new power plant/mall/dam. If you were a developer, no doubt you would claim that the guy with a british accent was a liar who distorted the truth to push his anti-PeacefulJeffery agenda, and you'd claim his film was a lying piece of rubbish that did not deserve the title of documentary. Unfortunately, you would have no better luck with that than you have had with F9/11.

[Michele 1]

Morning, Bill.

Quote

unless you claim it wasn't about Bush you'd be hard-pressed to claim that it was fictional

Not really true.

Consider:
JKF (by Oliver Stone)
The Messenger
The Exorcist
12 Angry Men
Silence of the Lambs
(About a million other movies I could name)

And so on. Not one of those above I consider "fact," while they were all heavily based on real events. They were fictionalized. This movie is in the same genre, which moves it out of the realm of non-fiction.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 3,120]

>JKF (by Oliver Stone)
>The Messenger
>The Exorcist
>12 Angry Men
>Silence of the Lambs

All of which were made with actors. All the video footage in F9/11 was real, taken from archives, news stories etc.

>This movie is in the same genre . . .

I'll have to go with the dictionary definition on this one. I realize that it would be very advantageous to define it as a non-documentary, but when I hear people who have never seen it try to change its genre so they can get some political advantage, I find it hard to take them seriously.