posted July 02, 2004 05:29 AM              

Ted Mandell
Indianapolis Star
July 2, 2004

My neighbors will not see "Fahrenheit 9/11." "It's just a bunch of lies."

Really? You know that without seeing it?

"I heard he twists all the facts and just wants to get Bush out of office. None of it's true."

Hmm. I didn't know that.

If you ever see Jennifer Lopez in person, she's not that attractive. My sister's best friend told me.

Expectations shape perception. We have expectations from our TV set. We have expectations from the movie screen. We have expectations that TV news should be factual. We have expectations that films described as "documentaries" should be presented like the news. Objectively.

Why? Because that's how we first experience documentaries in elementary school.

But in reality, documentaries are films, not facts. No one taught us that in social studies class.

No one in my eighth-grade class ever questioned the accuracy of the portrayal of Christopher Columbus in the yawn-filled documentary we endured one sticky spring afternoon. Our teacher, Mr. Jones, had the flu. We passed notes while the substitute read a magazine. Maybe that movie was just a bunch of lies.

Whatever you do, don't eat at Papa Giannetto's. The pizza is terrible. Haven't been there myself, but my friend got sick after eating at one.

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be the first documentary many Americans have ever seen in a movie theater. It may not; they may be doc savvy. But walking into the theater saddled with typical documentary expectations of "Fahrenheit 9/11," is like turning on "The O'Reilly Factor" and thinking you'll be watching a reality TV show. Well, I guess they are related about as much as I'm related to my sister-in-law's husband's step-brother.

Does that mean "Fahrenheit 9/11" is not a documentary? No. Does that mean it's full of lies? No. Does that mean "Fahrenheit 9/11" distorts reality? No.

It means that "Fahrenheit 9/11" has a point of view. A distinct point of view. An unrelenting argument. One rarely seen in films described as documentaries. One never seen on anything left of Laura Ingraham. In Michael Moore, Ingraham, the snide right radio host, has met her long-lost leftist fraternal twin. They both twist sound bites silly to make a point. They cleverly select statistics favorable to their political cause. They sarcastically skewer opponents.

But with "Fahrenheit 9/11," Moore the filmmaker trumps Ingraham the radio host. He presents the original goods, the real stories of average citizens both here and over there.

For those who see the film, ignore his biting sarcasm. Even ignore his connect-the-dots argument placing President Bush's hand deep in the Saudi cookie jar.

But ignore Moore's captivating, previously unseen footage both from Iraq and the United States, and you're ignoring what's happening in our country and in the world. It's difficult to watch the carnage of war. It's chilling to see Iraqi women and children in utter horror. It's heartbreaking to see an American mother read the final letter from her soldier son, killed in the line of duty. You can discredit Moore's footage as not being representative of the war as a whole. But you can't say it's not representative of each sad, gut-wrenching event.

To ignore that is truly sad.

As a voting American citizen, to discard "Fahrenheit 9/11" based upon the comments of those who haven't seen the film is even more tragic. Every American casting a vote in November should take the two hours to watch "Fahrenheit 9/11." They should also watch Fox News. Check out CNN. Read The Washington Post. Read The Washington Times. Watch the presidential debates. Get both sides of each argument.

Then vote based on what you've experienced and believe, not heard from a neighbor or a talk-show host.

posted July 02, 2004 01:01 PM              

I have been a MM fan. I've read his books, and seen most of his movies.

IMO, this time he has taken his satire too far and stretched the truth in the name of sensationalism. It worked. Got everyone's attention. Now he'll be an even richer man.

From what I have read thus far about the movie, the only evidence presented is evidence of his truth stretching. I can't find a single page out there that proves everyone else's research into his movie is wrong. Not one page. Hundreds of pages about how he exagerated the Bush/Saudi relationship though. I've found evidence of his lies on Liberal news sites as well as Conservative news sites.

The only thing that can be found to lift up this film are the rave reviews from people who haven't done their homework and blindly believe everything they are told from the left.

How is this any different than those Bush supporters that support him blindly because he's a Christian man, or because Fox News subliminally told them they should?

posted July 05, 2004 11:00 AM              

Rainbow: Yes! I agree, it IS a novel concept.

But you see, if one were to watch only the "information" we're getting from the mainstream media we would be making our decisions based on that info...AND THAT INFO ALONE!

....but Michael Moore (bless his heart), has given us MORE OPTIONS. Now we are able to get a fuller picture ...and I'm very grateful to him for that.

If it takes "other" sources of information (rather that what we've been force fed via the controled media) to inform the people that there's more going on than "meets the eye", then this "novel concept" for making important decisions, may not be such a "novel concept" in the future.