Posted on 06/21/2004 12:55:24 AM PDT by weegee
A reader writes:
"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."
That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.
Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.
That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.
The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.
The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.
In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.
Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.
Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."
The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive.
Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.
I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems.
Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.
Moore's most accurate work is Canadian Bacon. Ebert is still waiting for the Oscar for Beyond the valley of the Dolls.
doc·u·men·ta·ry
1.) Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2.Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Puh-leeze. If Moore had asserted that George W. Bush is an android sent by evil aliens to lay the groundwork for their invasion, that would not have raised a flag in Ebert's mind.
These guys never talk about the one missing ingredient and that is the truth.
I actually have no problem with Moore's bias -- especially since he is so open about it. What I have a problem with -- and why his films should not be considered "documentaries" -- is that he manufactures "facts" via selective editing to make it look like something happened that actually never did. A documentary should not invent, it should only focus.
I've been boycotting Ebert for at least a decade. Not because he's a jerk leftist movie critic, like 98% of movie "critics", but because he's an awful, leftist movie "critic". Over the years he's praised many truly awful films that have lured me to the silver screen. No more and no MOORE!!!
May Ebert choke on a chicken bone.
The German made film, "The Eternal Jew", may include some passages from that forged document.
I don't think that Roger expects wide acclaim for the movies he wrote for Russ Meyer (his later films were co-written under a pseudonym). Roger did end up marrying one of the actresses from Beneath The Valley Of The Ultravixens (the woman who played "Junkyard Sal") decades later.
What I find (mildly) amusing is how the movie "THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT" is being released the same week as Farenheit 9/11! Do you realize a movie about how forces of the opposition unfairly went ater a sitting President is being released the same week as a movie unfairly going after a sitting President by forces of the opposition.
Maybe Michael would like to remake it.
Hitler was upfront and honest about his opinions and political views. He wrote it all in Mein Kampf at the beginning of his career. Pol Pot was upfront and honest about his too. So was Osama bin Laden.
Even more goofy... I was reading in the paper today that Clinton's new book makes us wish for the "innocent" days of the '90s before George W. Bush. *eye roll*
Bias is one thing - outright lies and misrepresentation of facts are another.
Does anyone have a list of the factual errors in Bowling for Columbine?
True, but Hitler and Pol Pot didn’t come on TV reviewing movies.
I respect Elbert’s right to have his (misguided) views and opinions. I respect him for stating his has a liberal bias and opinion. At least he is upfront about it. What I don’t respect are the majority of clowns in the liberal media who say they are unbiased and objective and obviously are not. That was my point.
There were quite a few "shot on video" films that were released to theaters (such as Landmark's art house chain). The first one that comes to mind is "The War Room" about the campaign (George Stephenolous and James Carville in particular).
I think some of these election era pro-Clinton films were shot on video (A) because they didn't know if he would win and (B) because they didn't know if they would get a distribution deal so they wouldn't be spending as much money if they couldn't get it released.
I know that there were others. List them if you can. Also indicate if they got theatrical distribution.
On the "anti-Clinton" side there was "Waco:The Rules Of Engagement" (1997). It was even nominated for an Oscar but lost out to another film about the Holocaust I believe. WTROI did not play any theaters in Houston outside of an arranged screening at Rice University's Media Center (I heard about it on a radio show that was locally broadcast on a station that sold air time). The theater was absolutely sold out. I bought the video but could do nothing to persuade my liberal friends to even consider watching it.
Years later a followup film was made by the same producer, Michael McNulty, titled Waco: A New Revelation (1999). Some feel that it was not as well made. It expanded on a few elements from the first film but was also meant to work as a stand alone film. Among the most "shocking" footage was of a reporter being pummeled by the ATF (6 or so agents) beating a reporter to get his tape of the initial (poorly executed) assault. Reportedly the journalist was unhappy with that scene being included but they had signed a release on the footage before they reviewed what it exactly contained. I only ever saw this film screened in Houston at the Worldfest Film Festival. Afterwards I ate a steak dinner with one of the directors, Jason Van Vleet.
Neither Waco documentary ever put Bill Clinton's reelection at risk (both were made in his second term even though the event dates back to the early days of his first administration).
If there were other anti Clinton documentaries that were theatrically released, I would like to know what they were.
Feel free to mention any anti Reagan or anti Bush41 movies you can think of. Oliver Stone tried to make a film version of a book (Brought To Light, if I recall) designed to do to Bush41 what Moore hopes to do to Bush43. When Mr. Stone could not get financing/a distribution deal to get the movie out in time for the 1988 election, he dropped the project.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.