Fahrenheit 9/11 Brings the House Down in Cannes!

fac·tu·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkch-l)
adj.

1. Of the nature of fact; real.
2. Of or containing facts.

fact ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

re·al[size=-1]1[/size] ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rl, rl)
adj.

1. 1. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.
   2. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal: real people, not ghosts; a film based on real life

are we clear on how him making up facts is not a documentary?

 

Perhaps "making up facts" is not a documentary, however, you have yet to prove that Moore has made up a single fact. It is merely his presentation of them that you have been arguing about. If you are now going to turn around and say the a staged bank scene is a fiction, think again. THAT was an illustration. What you will have to refute is the claim that one could get a gun by opening a new account at a bank.

"I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in [Bowling for Columbine] is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact." - Michael Moore

Good luck!

 

There is nothing factual about that scene, if you think it is at all factual. I feel sorry for you.

A staged scene is not factual...it is misrepresentation..it is NOT a documentary.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/bank.htm

 

I am surprised you haven't been attacked yet like I have.

 

keep the faith, rat. you're to the left of me, i don't see where the offense is. i too think moore is full of propagandist crap, and he readily admits to actively working to sway political opinions with his films. i just listened to him do so on the bbc world news yesterday.

 

Well, let us examine the facts, shall we? The scene was planned ahead of time and EDITED (oh no!). This doesn't make it less true or factual. The Bank was not a set, it was the actual bank. All the people portrayed in the film as employees of the bank were, in fact, employees of the bank. Your abovementioned site uses a teller at the bank, one Jan Jacobsen, as the sole source of information concerning how the actual filming was organized and took place, what is more, it qualifies this statement by saying that "She says she resents the way she was portrayed as some kind of "backwoods idiot" mindlessly handing out guns." Only a few short phrases and no complete sentences on this site actually quote the "witness." Why is that? At the bottom of the page is the following disclaimer:

Information & analysis found on this page are a compilation of interjections by Richard Bushnell and columns written by Dave Kopel, National Review & Anthony Zoubek, daily vidette. Click the links to see each gentleman's original unedited piece on Bowling For Columbine.

Unsurprisingly, the site is a Richwatch trademarked site, owned and operated by Richard Bushnell. This guy is a Right Wing wacko with even less credibility than Rush Limbaugh (if that's possible). He has tried to get this sort of stuff over in the past, attacking Al Frankens book, however, Franken's people are quite adept at debunking the "debunkers" and caught him out. See:
http://www.alfrankenweb.com/smear2.html#bushnell

Dave Kopel is a writer for the National Review, possibly the most right-wing publication in the U.S. today. Much of his article (which is available in the abovementioned link) is used on Bushnells site without quote marks and with only the tiniest citation at the bottom of the page - any college professor would accuse Bushnell of plagiarism and have enough evidence on this page alone to have Bushnell kicked out of school for such a blatant disregard for another persons words. Anthony Zoubeck writes for a student newspaper published by Illinois State University, his article is no longer on-line to be checked.

You need to stop believing everything you read.

The following is Michael Moores response to allegations that the facts concerning the bank scene were misrepresented:

In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country – "More Bang for Your Buck!"
There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 – and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") – which I am filling out here for the first time – the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see the outtakes, click here).

And it is that very gun that I still own to this day. I have decided the best thing to do with this gun is to melt it down into a bust of John Ashcroft and auction it off on E-Bay (more details on that later). All the proceeds will go to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence to fight all these lying gun nuts who have attacked my film and make it possible on a daily basis for America's gun epidemic to rage on.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

The underlined portions of Mr. Moore's text still link to his corroborating evidence, if you wish to look at it.

Here is my favorite part. The site you link to has this comment, also from the bank employee source (again note how few words are actually in quotes):

Jacobson says the bank's so-called "Weatherby Program" has "absolutely" been a smashing success. She says their corporate office was braced for some possible criticism because of BFC. But, they got only two calls -- and these were from people wanting to know the details of the "Weatherby Program" so they, too, could get their long-guns!

Perhaps you need to look up the definition of "misrepresentation" too. Thank you for playing, Megara, please try again.

 

There is a difference between the audience of the film festival and americans. One of them is a crowd of intellectuals and the other is a crowd of mostly anti-intellectuals

 

wow, you kinda sound like a bigot there, stilanas. but that couldn't possibly be true. surely you realize that there is such a vast variety of types running about america, some thinkers, others sheep, other's middle of the road. but certainly not strictly anti-intellectual.

 

Pressed Rat - Wait until Farenheit 9/11 actually comes out before you make any pronouncements on Michael Moore's work. I think you will be suprised.

 

You could be right. I just read some reviews of it tonight. Though I think Michael Moore is a self-serving and arrogant yuppie, I will probably see the documentary anyway, out of curiosity.

When does it come out anyway?

 

Last I heard, sometime in August.

Where did you get the idea that Michael Moore was a Yuppie? He doesn't look like a yuppie, doesn't dress like one, doesn't drive a yuppie car, isn't image obsessed like a yuppie, doesn't have a yuppie background or yuppie friends, doesn't talk or act like a yuppie.

"Young Urban Professionals" or "Yuppies" tend to be image concious, class concious, money grubbing, S.U.V. drivers who wear Rolex watches (if they can afford them) and live in houses in gated communities.

Michael Moore has an apartment over a Baby Gap. I don't get it? Is it because he makes a lot of money?

 

This is semi-OT but I thought it should be posted for clarification:

Taken fron "The Free Dictionary dot com"
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Yuppie
The Yuppie Stereotype



"Yuppies" refers to more than just a demographic profile: it is also a psychographic profile. It describes a set of behavioural and psychographic attributes that have come to constitute a commonly believed stereotype

Yuppies are thought to be more conservative than the preceding hippie generation. Dispensing of the social causes of their more passionate parents (who themselves shed traditional values), yuppies tend to be 9-5 professional workers. Because of this, some people see them as sellouts. Yuppies tend to value material goods (especially trendy new things). In particular this can apply to their stocks, imported automobiles, development houses, and technological gadgets, particularly cell phones.

Unfortunately, the fast paced pursuit of these material goods has unintended consequences. Usually in a hurry, they seek convenience goods and services. Being "time poor", their family relations can become difficult to sustain. Maintaining their way of life is mentally exhausting. Sometimes, they will move every few years to where their job goes, straining their family. The fast-paced lifestyle has been termed a rat race.

Heavily influenced by a competitive corporate environment, they often value those behaviours that they have found useful in gaining upward mobility and hence income and status. They often take their corporate values home to their spouses and children. According to the stereotype, there is a certain air of informality about them, yet an entire code of unwritten etiquette can govern their activities from golf and tennis to luncheons at cocktail and sushi bars.
____________________________________________________________________

There is more on that page, which you may read if you like, see the link I posted above.

Hope that helps to set the record straight. I think you would have a hard time fitting Michael Moore into this mold.

 

i dont understand why this thread turned into one where everyone was flaming each other. we live in a world of opinions. and everyone has one. i thought we were here to offer them to each other. there are things that i agree and disagree w/ that were stated in here.

i agree that michael moore is arrogant. i agree that he utilizes propoganda to make his points. but i also do not think that bowling for columbine was a film about gun use as much as it was a film stating that the united states government uses tools to instill fear in its countries occupants. the course he used in making this point is tainted. however, the message was powerful.
do any of us disagree that this country operates under fear? thats the best way to control people make them scared and they will look to you for help or they will start buying things to protect themselves thus boosting the economy. i dont normally post on these threads, mainly cause people get so freakin pissy about their opinions.
now skip. this is your site. and i thank you for it. i love coming here. i love the people i have met on here and feel i have a pretty strong sense as to who people are on here. matt. pressed rat, presents hisself well with any thread he enters, he is steady in his thoughts and doesnt sway. i have never felt that he was a bush lover. just the opposite. i dont understand from where that came. he is one of the few posters on here that has facts to base his opinion on.
its hard when there are 2 strong personalities that butt heads. but everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

 

is it just the government manipulating us through fear, or it is a cultural problem? does the government control culture, or is culture responsible for the direction government takes? personally, i think the two problems feed each other, which is one of the things that makes practical solutions so hard to come by. mr. moore may be arrogant, but even he doesn't seem to be claiming to have any magic answers.

skip and rat, i honestly think that the reason why you two seem to inflame each other is because you're so much alike. you're both intelligent, a bit arrogant at times, and occaisionally inflexible or blinded by your own views. which is ok, because you are both human beings. now please, try to extend the olive branch.

 

yes it is indeed both feeding each other. the society and the government. i wonder from which direction the cycle started. would need to look into history further in order to say for sure. but at this point, i feel it is the media, now who controls the media, i am not sure

 

The vast majority of the media is concentrated in the hands of a few extremely wealthy and powerful people/corporations. The number is growing smaller all the time (at my last count, sometime in the mid-'90s, eleven corporations owned 93% of the U.S. media sources). Look at what Diseny tried to do to Farenheit 9/11. It is not the commentators, or reporters that we should be worried about. It is the people who own the media. These people control what news stories are available to the public. This is where the conservative bias is most evident, but of course most people have no clue it is even going on.

 

Ultimately, it is the corporations that manipulate the Government and the media which are responsible. We have allowed them to create a fear-based culture right under our noses and like the "frog in a pan of water on the stove" metaphor (which I love), we are largely oblivious to it. Fear sells. As long as the general populace is kept scared, corporations will be able to convince them that they "need" all sorts of useless stuff. To assuage our fear, we buy and buy and buy. It's such a deeply programmed response that most of us will die never knowing that we were victims of it.

 

I'm interested in seeing this, but IMO Micheal Moore is a bit of a bleeding heart shlock. I saw "Bowling for Columbine" which I was very excited to see and when I did it was so disappointing.

He asks a reasonable question about the shootings, but instead of diving into that he begins veering off into other topics. Pollution, poverty, corporate greed, and he points fingers at everyone but the parents of the shooters.

Instead of making an appointment to see Dick Clark he approaches him in his car like an amatuer and begins grilling him, instead of making a sensible appeals to Charlton Heston he corners him at his mansion. Is that how professionals work?

It seems the documentary had other goals except trying to bring sense to a senseless tragedy.

I'll see this but I have a feeling it will be a one-sided film.

 

EXACTLY!

And this is exactly what I don't like about Moore. With that type of attitude, Moore only alienates certain people, and they miss whatever message he is trying to get across, because all they remember is what a pompous asshole he is.

Moore is lucky Charlton Heston even let him into his house. Now I am no Charlton Heston fan by any means, but Moore acted like (as the person above stated) a total amateur by doing what he did. Frankly, if I was Heston, I would have taken the video camera and smashed it to bits and told Moore to get the fuck out of my house. Heston could have done this (he should have done it), but using better judgment and reasoning than Moore, he simply walked away.

Moore has a knack for making people he doesn't agree with look like idiots (including everyday civilians), and that is just not how any reasonable, intelligent person works. If Moore was really out to make a point instead of make money, he would have conducted himself in a more professional way.