Moore's Code
yesterday, i saw Fahrenheit 9/11. for those of you who don't know it is Michael Moore's (Bowling for Columbine) latest contraversial documentary. in his film he criticizes the president's decision to invade Iraq after 9/11. his primary reasoning is that Iraq and the attack on the WTC were completely unrelated. also, he questions the president's loyalties with evidence that the president has finantial ties to the taliban through his oil ventures and other coporations. it was extremely interesting, and disturbing, how everything seemed to connect. even more disturbing was how much evidence there was to prove that everything was connected. but most disturbing, were the images of the war. the raw, uncensored images of actual war.
watching soldiers in iraq and watching the aftermath of what we did. it was.... indescribable. the movie portrayed soldiers when they first arived, and what their spirits were like. and as the movie progressed, you saw the difference in the soldiers quite obviously. looking at them, i couldnt help putting myself in their shoes. and that alone scared the shit out of me. i began to see the faces of my friends. and what it would be like to have to watch one of them die. or to have to leave them behind and go off to war. or to recieve their last letter after having heard that they were killed in combat. needless to say, the images and thoughts that went with them were, for lack of a better word, devastating. to watch the proud mother of an army soldier transform into the grieving mother of casualty of war. and to watch her visit washington d.c. and nearly colapse in utter anguish at the sight of the white house. that was difficult to watch.
anyways, in conclusion, i highly recomend everyone who symble upon this go out and watch this documentary. whether or not you agree with moore and his postion and/or his actions, you must see this movie; if only to get another perspective on events. the perspective not spoon fed to you by the media..... or worse, FOX.
P.S. for those of you who don't know the title "Fahrenheit 9/11" is in reference to Fahrenheit 451 a book by Ray Bradbury about a totalitarian government that uses fear through filtered media and false information to control society. The written word is outlawed and books are systematicaly burned. (451 degrees fahrenheit is the temperature at which books burn.)
posted by Thomas at 12:07 AM
11 Comments:
Yes, I've heard and read about the film - it's hogged headlines for a while. Apparently, R. Bradbury was infuriated with M. Moore for stealing his title and renaming it.
Personally, having watched Bowling for Columbine, I'd throw in some caution to Fahrenheit 9/11. After all, there's been so much controversies that one perspective is just not fair. I have more to say but I think I shall leave it till I've watched the film.
Anyway, thanks for sharing this interesting post ! :-)
yeah. on the bradbury website there is a bevy of discussions/arguements on their forum regarding moore's use of the "title." even though the ttile is indeed different, and the concept of the movie is quite related to the book.i'm not completely sure what all the fus is about, but i can see both sides of that scuffle. either way. briliant book, briliant movie, and a briliant play on words. briliant.
(i hope Rupert Grint doesnt get mad that i used his tag line...)
I want to see it!!!
So what? Would it be ok if it were a conservative point of view? This bias is expected. To view the film you gotta look at everything from your own perspective. Gos, its like people can't think for themselves anymore.
ellen, i agree. to some extent. i didnt expect him to jump up and scream "oh shit we're gonna die," but he did hear about the initial attack even before his visit to the classroom. when he was interupted, he was told of the second attack. now, at that point, he could have politely interupted the teacher, and asked to be excused in light of an urgent matter. i'm sure that the teacher would have understood that he had something more pressing to tend to. he is, after all the president.
i give him credit for keeping his composure, but to sit there, in a classroom surounded by children while his country was being attacked and people were dieing by the hundreds.... he should have taken action a bit more promptly.
ok.. before this gets out of hand... lemme say a few things...
first off. so what if he got up and left, something WAS wrong. very wrong. i dont think the kids would have thought much of it, and he may have shaken up the teacher a bit... but that is a small price to pay for a quicker, more strategic response.... as opposed to just sitting there and reading a childrens book as people were dying and continued to be in iminent danger (there were still 2 hi-jacked planes in the air. i'm sure he could have gotten up imediately, ordered that all flights be grounded and that any planes not responding be escorted or shot down. which may or may not have saved lives.) also, there is no way you can say that gore would have taken longer, since he wasnt in that cituation. all this is only speculation.
as for the political bias..... there is always a political bias. the bias sways with the corporation that owns the media.. whether news channel, newpaper or magazine. and his whole point is that there is a conservative bias in our media today, and he has taken it upon himself to give the liberal perspective. he has no obligation to give both perspectives. why would someone present evidence against their own arguements? it is up to the conservatives to make their documentary about the other side of the story. but you are right, it IS up to the people to make up their own minds.... but the more info they have, the more educated a decision they will make.
then why does so much news that is potentially harmful to the government go un reported by OUR media, but is reported in other countries?
its nbot a question of why they report what we don't.. its a question of why we don't report what they do. like a certain 1100 page weapons report done by the UN weapons inspectors of Iraq that was edited by our governement before released to the press. a german newspaper broke the story.
oh, and the version that was given to the press... was 300 pages long.
oops. did i say 1100... i meant 11,000. and 8,00 turned up missing.
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/3.html
it makes the media conservative because the executives, who ultimately decide what goes on the air and what doesnt, doesnt want to make waves and adversely affect his revenueincome. i know it seems far fetched, but i can think of many times that a news channel didnt report something because it reflected badly on the parent company. also, the fact that ALL news outlets opt out of stories that tarnish our government makes them conservative in the sense that they dont want to make waves and cause mass hysteria and paranoia... something our government excels at.
BLAH! w/e
clearly you are a republican, and clearly, i live in california. end of debate.
i still dont get how someone can hit someone else in the head with an innertube....
Post a Comment
<< Home