We made it out to see Farenheit 9/11 in Hollywood this weekend, and all we will say is that it's a movie every American should see. (Well, that, and the recent piece by Chris Hitchens - whose work we normally enjoy - is total balls, the sad and vindictive rantings of someone who's dug himself too far into a corner to turn around now.)
Hitchens venom aside, surely you can see that Moore has a loose relationship to facts and truth? Even the local progessive alt weekly here in Columbus critized the film for its lack of accuracy and reason.
At least Edelstein in Slate felt guilty about wanting a man like Moore on his side.
Posted by: Kevin Holtsberry | June 28, 2004 at 09:07 AM
Kevin: I don't think anyone's disputing that Moore is essentially presenting his opinion in the form of a documentary that collects existing information established by other sources. The film is, in part, a polemic. But surely the Lila Lipscomb footage (objective terrain in which Moore is well away from camera) and the remarkable Bush gaffes are prima facie. Or as my sister recently put it, "Anyone who walks away from it without feeling something is a cocksucker."
Posted by: Ed | June 28, 2004 at 10:33 AM
I am not saying that parts of it aren't funny or effective or even that I disagree with all of it. All I am saying is that shouldn't Moore's inability to make a factual argument or his seeming complete disregard for truth or even for journalistic standards count against him? Is this what the left has come to?
As I noted even the lefty in the alt weekly I read this AM was willing to admit that Moore is a poor spokesmen who is unlikely to win over anyone not already on his side.
I dislike Limbaigh and Coulter and a host of others even though our political views when broken down are put us on the same side of the spectrum. I was wondering whether Mark felt this way about Moore.
Posted by: Kevin Holtsberry | June 28, 2004 at 12:37 PM
It seems that if you can't put together a straightforward, factual argument to make your point, that something is wrong with your ability to make that point.
It doesn't necessarily mean that the point isn't there to be made - just that you might not be the person to be making it.
The fact is though, it's politics, the folks who spent $21.8 million dollars to see this film over the weekend went in with a viewpoint, and I'd bet 99.8% or more came out with that same viewpoint. They just came out hating Bush or Moore even more than they did when they entered the cinema.
And as for Hitchens, my reading of him is limited to the book on Clinton, the two lengthy essays on Kissinger from I believe it was The Atlantic (and I'm sure they somehow formed the book about him, but I'd guess he flushed it out), and some other essays.
I personally see how he's gotten any more biting or vindictive than he's ever been. It's just pointing in a different direction now.
Posted by: Dan Wickett | June 28, 2004 at 02:27 PM
I think everyone agrees that Moore's movie is very loosely called a documentary. And yes, most of the people who went to see it this past weekend probably already had a negative opinion about Bush and his administration. But I think its important that this movie be seen and talked about. Bush and his cohorts have gotten away with a great deal and the media is not doing its job in reporting it. Yes, Moore is biased, but at least he is talking and making a point. Maybe some people who are undecided about the current administration will now vote Bush out in November.
Posted by: bookdwarf | June 28, 2004 at 02:38 PM