articles
No Rush Limbaugh opinion pieces here. Some of Michael Moore's
most prominen
t detractors are members of his own ilk. Enough
of the same media that attacks Republicans and Conservatives on
a regular basis have Here are a few must-read articles that bring
us a step closer to the stage... witness Michael Moore's sleight-of-hand
filmmaking format up close and in it's full glory.
Unfairenheit
9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT
One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the
American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather
too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous,
and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine,
did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical
Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately
to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it,
would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings
themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the
danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.
Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is
finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken's unintentionally
funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews
in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of
collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again
that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even
distant cousins. With Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, however,
an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible
fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic
standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein
or Leni Riefenstahl.
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" bravery. (read
the entire article here.)
Moore
Distortions
Posted on CBSNews.com - article by
Richard Just of The New Republic
June 28, 2004
A mainstream liberal consensus on Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit
9/11" has emerged quickly. It goes something like this: Moore's
a nutty conspiracy theorist, and parts of the movie -- in which
he suggests, among other things, that we invaded Afghanistan not
because of 9/11 but because we wanted to build a natural gas pipeline
-- showcase Moore at his least responsible. (read
the entire article here.)
Under
the Hot Lights
Moore's movie will make waves. But it's a fine line between
fact and fanaticism. Deconstructing 'Fahrenheit 9/11'
By Michael Isikoff,
Investigative Correspondent
Newsweek
 June 28,
2004 issue - Can Michael Moore be believed? It is a question more
than a few moviegoers may be asking this week as his new documentary,
"Fahrenheit 9/11," hits theaters. Like Moore's previous
works, the movie is a melange of investigative journalism, partisan
commentary and conspiracy theories. A run-down of some of Moore's
most provocative allegations, and how they stack up against the
record... (read
the entire article here.)
More
Distortions From Michael Moore
Some of the main points in ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ really
aren’t very fair at all
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek Web Exclusive
June 30, 2004 Updated: 6:26 p.m. ET
June 30 - In his new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” film-maker
Michael Moore makes the eye-popping claim that Saudi Arabian interests
“have given” $1.4 billion to firms connected to the
family and friends of President George W. Bush. This, Moore suggests,
helps explain one of the principal themes of the film: that the
Bush White House has shown remarkable solicitude to the Saudi royals,
even to the point of compromising the war on terror. When you and
your associates get money like that, Moore says at one point in
the movie, “who you gonna like? Who’s your Daddy? But
a cursory examination of the claim reveals some flaws in Moore’s
arithmetic—not to mention his logic. (read
the entire article here.)
Newspaper
upset with Michael Moore
Says director created a doctored front page for ‘Fahrenheit
9/11’
The Associated Press
Filmmaker Michael Moore’s Bush-basing documentary “Fahrenheit
9/11” has apparently upset more than Republicans.
The Pantagraph newspaper in Bloomington said Friday it sent a letter
to Moore and the film’s distributor, Lions Gate Entertainment
Corp., asking for an apology for using what it said was a doctored
front page in his movie.
The paper is seeking $1 in damages.
A scene early in the movie shows newspaper headlines related to
the contested 2000 presidential election. It includes a shot of
The Pantagraph’s Dec. 19, 2001, front page, with the prominent
headline, “Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election.”
The newspaper says that headline never appeared on that day. (read
the entire article here.)
Baloney,
Moore or Less
The Washington Post
By Richard Cohen
Thursday, July 1, 2004; Page A23
I brought a notebook with me when I went to see Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and in the dark made notes before I
gave up, defeated by the utter stupidity of the movie. One of my
notes says "John Ellis," who is a cousin of George W.
Bush and the fellow who called the election for Fox News that dark
and infamous night when the presidency -- or so the myth goes --
was stolen from Al Gore, delivering the nation to Halliburton, the
Carlyle Group and Saudi Arabia, and plunging it into war. A better
synopsis of the movie you're not likely to read. (read
the entire article here.)
Top of Page
Back to Main
|
