July 4th Observance – Fridley Theatres Debate

Ross, thanks for allowing us to expand upon the subject of the Michael Moore film. I agree wholeheartedly with you about comments about this subject being kept at a civilized and intelligent level. This is where I think Moore drops the ball. He tends to go a little too far out there sometimes, and I don’t know if he is helping or hurting his industry. There seems to be more talk about Moore’s fudging of the facts than his movies themselves. Even Richard Clarke, who served as a principal source for Fahrenheit 911, has said the central premise of the film is “a mistake”. We have a local Kansas City movie chain that is also refusing to show the movie. With all of the movies that have been shown over the last few decades that have an anti-war message, I seriously doubt that these movie theater chains are refusing to show Moore’s movie solely because it is anti-Bush or anti-war. Moore has a growing credibility problem, and I don’t think these theater chains feel that this is a true “documentary”. At the end of a true documentary, I feel that I have been given all of the important facts and am left to make up my own mind. At the end of a Michael Moore film, I feel as though he has tried to make up my mind for me.

Ross, thanks for running such a wonderful website and allowing us to “vent”.

Charles, my family and I thank your son for his courage and commitment to allowing all of us to live in freedom.

Thank you for your response, Gerald.

It is difficult to discuss this without going in a totally different direction that would not allow us to stay within the spirit of this website. I will try to keep my comments more focused on Michael Moore’s impact on the film industry and less focused on my political point of view.

I think that Americans are ready for a detailed look at the reasons 911 happened. I think a movie or documentary covering the last 30-40 years of all of our presidential administrations during that time period would give a more accurate account as to what lead up to 911. I also think it would be a boom to the theater industry. If Moore had decided to go in that direction his film may be taking in twice the revenue it is now. Who knows?

You bring up a good point that the Bush administration has it’s credibility problems, and there are facts out there to back that up. That is why I hold Michael Moore to a higher standard. You can’t criticize Bush for his credibility problems when you have plenty of your own. I would dismiss the criticism of him if it were just coming from the conservative side. But the criticism is coming from both sides of the political spectrum, and I can’t ignore that.

A documentary is factual presentation given in artistic form. I feel that Moore lowers the bar, and it may have a negative impact on the film industry. There are bound to be Michael Moore clones in the near future that will follow his lead. If the industry as a whole or part starts to have a credibility problem, that can have a negative impact on box office receipts and hurt, if not cause closure of, some of the smaller theaters that are struggling to get by.

I will have to disagree with you that there is no difference between the works of Michael Moore and Frank Capra or Barbara Kopple. Mr. Capra and Ms. Kopple have earned their respect through integrity. Mr. Moore has yet to achieve that status. One only has to do a google search on each filmmaker individually to see the difference.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this, Gerald. Thank you for the spirited debate and best of luck to you.

What could have been “left on the cutting room floor,” I wonder, that would have made Bush’s response to the attack on the World Trade Center appear more presidential? He just sat there for 11 minutes, reading “My Pet Goat,” bewildered, lost, not knowing what he should do. Utterly appalling. It is an apt symbol for a clueless president, out of his element, who governs via cliches, not intelligence. This is one of Moore’s salient points, and yes, it reflects Moore’s feelings and those of many millions of Americans. The movie is an op-ed documentary. A documentary can reflect a particular point of view. It does not have to encompass all points of view. It is meant to sway. And the issue of the war is larger than whether someone in particular is comfortable with what America is doing there. We were all lied to about the reasons for going there (WMDs), and now the administration, in the absence of those weapons, is forced to find new justifications, but polls show that the American public is catching on. And I hope that Moore helps them catch on even further.
But I ramble and rant…sorry!

Jakorns, for the record, “Bowling for Columbine” was highly praised by reviewers and public alike and went on to win an Academy Award. Many people, including myself, didn’t find it slipshod at all but very much on target about the nature of violence and gun-deaths in America.
Re: reading “My Pet Goat.” It is naive to think that the man we saw in those crucial minutes, including AFTER he is told a second plane has struck, was concerned with causing panic and confusion in the classroom. Puh-leeze! The man himself was panicked and confused. That’s what my eyes tell me. I don’t think students would have been trampled if Bush had simply left the school with his aides and went to immediately deal with the crisis. That would not have been acting on impulse. In regard to your allusion to Clinton acting on sexual impulse and lying about it: Bush has lied over and over about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, about a presumed Iraq-Al Quaeda connection. His lies led to an irrational war against the WRONG ENEMY when he should have been going with equal vigor against Al Quaeda. And we see the results: the death of so many Americans and Iraqis in a bloody war of folly. Tell me, for these lies and deaths of which he is guilty before his country and his God, will he be impeached? How many deaths did Monica cause? Despite his sexual indiscretions, Bill Clinton was a brilliant president. George W. Bush is a dangerous ignorant fool who must be fought tooth and nail. If “Fahrenheit 9/11” will help more of the American people acknowledge this truth, it will have performed a valuable patriotic service.

In a way it is good that Mr. Fridley refuses to show the film, because now it will generate an intense desire on the part of many folks in his cinematic fiefdom to go out of their way to see it, despite his patronizing, backward attitude toward his customers. You cannot tell Americans for long what they cannot see or do before they will go out of their way to see or do it. Remember James Joyce’s “Ulysses” was once banned too. I hope folks will drive a distance to other theaters to see this gigantic landmark of a film or buy it when it comes out on DVD. It is worth the drive. It is worth the purchase.
To find out where it is playing in Iowa, Nebraska, or elsewhere, click:
http://www.f911tix.com/
And to reach award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore’s website, click:
www.michaelmoore.com

Oh, I know it’s propaganda. And not unbiased. But whoa. Don’t dismiss it as UNFACTUAL. Bias does not of itself preclude factuality. That’s the whole point. Moore uncovered and underlined, in the opinion of many, some disturbing FACTS about the Bush administration. And he has challenged those who would to dispute those facts.

True, Mr. Fridley has no legal obligation to show the movie. But one would think he would show it simply because of its public demand and to make it part of a healthy discourse within our democracy. But his own bias has interfered with that notion. (In all courtesy, he’s probably a nice guy, but I don’t think what he has done is right.) It would be interesting to see if he plans to show Michael Wilson’s film “Michael Moore Hates America” (now there’s a biased title!) I think all the theaters showing F911 should indeed show that too and let the public benefit from the contrasting discourse. Discussion, not suppression!

Time will tell as to whether Mr. Fridley has made the right decision or not. However, I would not call anyone “backward” because they have a different point of view. Mr. Fridley is exercising his right just as Mr. Moore is, and that is what makes this country great.

I urge people to go see the movie and decide for themselves. However, I also think that people should educate themselves on the controversy surrounding Mr. Moore. Here is a man who has insulted our troops, called Americans “dumb”, and put down Capitilism. Yet he doesn’t seem to have a problem enjoying the freedoms that our troops fight for, or making millions of dollars off of a Capitalistic society filled with “dumb” Americans.

You can like Mr. Moore, or you can hate him. I am posting a link that is not kind to him. I would urge everyone to do a search on Michael Moore and look at the good as well as the bad and decide for yourselves. Then, please feel free to post your comments here. This has become a very interesting debate.

View link

Gerald, some of Michael Moore’s comments:

1. “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy’. They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow – and they will win.” (Moore’s message posted on his website April 14, 2004)

How are American soldiers supposed to feel when Moore calls them the “occupation” and says that they are going to lose to the Iraqis?

1. “The kind of people who fly in airplanes want someone else to clean up their mess; that’s why they let hijackers take the plane.”

2. “The passengers on September 11 were scaredy-cats, because they were mostly white.”

3. To German fans about Americans Moore asked “Should such an ignorant people lead the world?”

4. In England, regarding American intelligence: “They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet.”

As for comments 2-5, these are Moore’s generalized, racist comments, not mine. For whatever good Moore does, he turns around and hurts his own credibility by saying things like that. Add to that the people who claim that he has a problem getting his facts straight and that adds up to quite a controversy.

All of this info and much more is available on the internet for anyone who wants to take the time to check into it. You can choose to believe or disbelieve it. But does the controversy itself help or hurt the film industry? I guess we will find out in due time. Gerald, we may not agree on this, but if Michael Moore strikes a chord inside you than all I can say is more power to ya.

It will be interesting to see what Michael Moore has to say about the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee report released today.

I posted here on July 9th that I would be interested in hearing Michael Moore’s comments on the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee and, at the time of this posting, have seen no comments on his website regarding that report. Perhaps he will do so in a few days.

Here is a link to an article by Christopher Hitchens stating the facts that he thinks are wrong in F911.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

As I have stated before, Richard Clarke has gone on record as saying that the central premise of F911 is “a mistake”. Mr. Clarke went on to say that he, and he alone, took responsibility for those Saudi departures. This presents an interesting dilemma for Michael Moore. If Mr. Moore says that Richard Clarke is lying, then his source for his central premise is flawed. If Mr. Moore says that Richard Clarke is telling the truth, then his central premise itself is flawed. I have yet to see or hear Mr. Moore comment on this, and Gerald, if you have any links that I can look at, please post them here. I would be interested in seeing them.

Mr. Moore’s use of the term “occupation” is not an innocent choice of words (word). His meaning is very clear. It is a force Iraqis will rise up to and defeat. I find it confusing that he paints the image in F911 that he is supportive of the American troops in Iraq and the victims of 911, yet makes the comments that I have previously posted. You would think that you were talking about two entirely different individuals, yet they are one and the same. It’s so sad, I don’t even think I could call it hypocritical.

I will continue to wait for Michael Moore to comment on the aforementioned controversies. If Michael Moore can meet that “challenge”, I think that it will be a good start to answering some of the more important questions.

Gerald, I did not use the Richard Clarke example to defend President Bush. I am fully aware that Clarke does not like the President. So when Mr. Clarke goes on record as saying that the central premise of F911 is a mistake, the red flags go up. I would like to hear Michael Moore answer Clarke’s recent comment on F911.

At this point, the Senate Intelligence Committee has found the information that the CIA collected to be flawed. It has not stated that the Bush administration lied to the American people or the world community, only that they were given flawed information which resulted in the decision to go to war with Iraq. The committee is now focusing on the Bush administration but will not come to it’s conclusions until months after the election. The timing seems suspicious, but at this point, I don’t have any reason to believe the committee is corrupt, unless it is proven otherwise in the future. As far as I know, the 9/11 commission has not stated that President Bush lied, either. I would also like for Mr. Moore to publicly state now, not later, as to whether he respects the Senate Intelligence Committee’s current and future conclusions. If he supports them now, and they come to the conclusion that Bush didn’t lie, he’s stuck with it. If he waits, and they come to that conclusion, I suspect he will attack the Commission’s integrity. Is he willing to take the gamble?

I respect the right of Michael Moore to disagree with President Bush’s reasons for going to war with Iraq. However, unless Mr. Moore is privy to information that the aforementioned investigative bodies is not, I think it is irresponsible for him to lead people to believe that Bush lied until the Senate Committee releases it’s final conclusions about the administration itself. If at that time they state that Bush lied, he can scream about it until he is blue in the face for all I care.

I agree that if you have questions you think President Bush should answer, then he should do just that. That does not excuse Michael Moore from answering some of mine.