Fahrenheit 9/11

So, what qualifies as a 'real' documentary then? Is it just raw footage from a security camera?

Man, you’re basically accusing someone of having a dishonest opinion. 🙄 It’s giving me major Harmon vibes from his heyday.
Look, Moore is a total provocateur and a film essayist, not some straight-laced news reporter. Honestly, I think that seems pretty obvious to any reasonable viewer out there. If some people choose to take everything they see on screen at face value and just adopt someone else's perspective as their own, well, that's on them—it doesn't change the core of our debate, which is simply that a documentary doesn't strictly have to be objective to still be considered a documentary film.

Richard Hernandez13 said:So what defines a "real" documentary then? Is it just raw footage from a security camera?

It’s hard to say. It helps when you don't notice those jump cuts—the ones designed to cut someone off mid-sentence just so the second half says something completely different. It helps when the voiceover doesn't feel so forced, trying too hard to explain every single image on screen. It helps when a filmmaker actually stays quiet—letting a shot breathe in silence so you have a chance to reach your own conclusions. It makes me think of Werner Herzog’s documentary "Lessons in Darkness" about Desert Storm.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Man, you’re basically accusing me of being dishonest. 🙄 Just like Harmon in his prime.

😕 Where on earth did you get that from? I’m accusing him of being over the top—he's constantly forcing his opinions on everyone. It’s like watching Obrad Kosovac in his prime.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Moore is a damn provocateur—a film essayist, not a journalist. That much should be obvious to any sane viewer.

Then let her write a script about a corrupt U.S. President colluding with global terrorists—and try to debate the point through a feature film. This movie had its agenda long before production even started. It’s impossible that a director would suddenly realize they were wrong mid-shoot and decide to incorporate those corrections into the final cut.

Richard Hernandez13 said:If some people choose to take everything they see on screen at face value—mistaking someone else's opinion for their own—that’s their business. It has nothing to do with our actual point here: that documentary films don't inherently need to be objective to earn their title. Documentaries—too often just fluff..

We’re discussing one specific movie here—the whole point of this thread. This film wasn't designed to uncover the truth; its only goal was to ruthlessly cater to its target audience. It caters to people who show up knowing exactly what they’re going to get—and exactly what will be served to them. In that regard, Michael Moor is nothing more than a war profiteer, right on par with George W. Bush.

tatiana said:That’s exactly why I prefer Madman—it doesn't lecture you with its own agenda.

Oh, here we go with the gems. Claiming unemployment is higher in Canada just because more people are registered? That’s what we call biased data manipulation.

There’s far too little discussion regarding antidepressant culture. It’s almost as if nobody wants to take aim at Big Pharma? Apparently, it’s much easier to bash a grocery chain or some aging actor instead.

In "Columbine," the most powerful moment is that cop in downtown LA who pretends to hear something just so he can slip away after being asked an awkward question by some guy. Now *that* is a documentary.

It’s a tough call, really. It helps when you aren't constantly tripping over jump cuts designed to cut a speaker off mid-sentence just because the second half of their thought contradicts the first. It helps when the voiceover isn't aggressively spoon-feeding you an interpretation of every single image flashing on the screen. It also helps when a filmmaker actually lets a shot linger in silence, giving you a genuine chance to draw your own conclusions. It makes me think of Werner Herzog’s documentary "Lessons in Darkness" about Desert Storm.

Now we're finally getting somewhere!
Just say you don't like Moore or Fahrenheit 9/11 because his style of cinematic debating feels cheap, his arguments feel forced, his facts feel manufactured, or simply because he's a populist who hits below the belt—basically, just call him a total opportunist. That's your opinion, and that should be enough.
But please, let's not try to excuse him with those "external" justifications like, "Oh, but he's subjective, and documentaries are supposed to be objective."

You mention how much it helps when "a shot lingers in silence so you have a chance to conclude." But who pointed the camera there? Who framed that specific shot? The director. And what was their basis for pointing the lens in that direction or placing that specific clip at that exact moment in the film? It all comes down to their own subjective judgment.
At the end of the day, a documentary filmmaker is essentially asking us to see the world through their eyes. It's all inherently subjective.
Moore is just a guy who happens to be a bit louder and less polished.

I'm accusing him of being way too aggressive in forcing his opinions on everyone.

Oh, come on now, don't go overboard. You make it sound like he personally showed up at your front door and sat on you.
"The best way to respond to a film is to make your own film," as that Madman Frenchman once said, and honestly, he was onto something. Some people actually took him up on it.

Moore did a decent job here, even if he was being incredibly biased. He tore Bush apart from top to bottom, which honestly makes for much more compelling viewing for Americans who were misled—first by the elections and then by dozens of other ways—than it does for us. The documentary keeps the scope somewhat localized, and while a few segments are genuinely fascinating, others are just plain morbid. I wouldn't bet money that everything in there is 100% factual, either. How should I put it? One anecdote is a fluke, two make a pattern, but anything beyond that feels "too good to be true." Just typical American business.

northerncrane4 said:It’s a movie that isn't even trying to uncover the truth; it's just shamelessly pandering to its target audience. The people watching this film go in knowing exactly what they're going to get, and that's precisely what they receive. In that sense, Michael Moore is nothing more than a war profiteer on the same level as George W. Bush.

I'm almost entirely with you on this. The only snag is if it turns out what the director is pushing is actually the truth. If that's the case, we run into the argument that such manipulation is justified—or worse, that it was the only way to show American citizens what's really happening.
I don't know if you're aware, but two years after 9/11, a poll was conducted in the US asking, "Who is responsible for this?" Over 70% of respondents blamed Saddam Hussein. People in the room called it the biggest magic trick in history...🙂
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Moore and I can't stand biased work in any art form, but there's another side to this story... though I doubt it ever crossed Moore's mind.

man, that movie is totally biased... especially since it was produced by CNN...
for instance... about 1.4 billion dollars went straight into the pockets of the Bush family, their buddies, and certain corporations... just look at how the money flowed...

Clint Eastwood even said if Michael Moore ever showed up on his property, he'd shoot him on sight... seriously, just give me some Clint 😁

Richard Hernandez13 said:I can't stand Moore and *Fahrenheit 9/11*—his brand of filmmaking is cheap, his arguments are forced, and half the facts are just straight-up fabrications. He’s nothing more than a populist using low blows; a total opportunist.

I said exactly what I meant to say.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Don't even try to excuse him with those "external" excuses—you know, the whole "he's just being subjective" bit, or claiming that documentaries have some inherent obligation to be objective.

He isn't being subjective—he just is. Biased..

Richard Hernandez13 said:You claim that letting a shot "fade to silence" gives you a chance to wrap things up—but who actually directed that shot? Who decided where the camera should point? The director. And why was that specific angle chosen, or why was that cut placed exactly there? It all comes down to their own subjective judgment.
Ultimately—the documentary filmmaker is basically telling us to take a look. His. It’s all a matter of perception—everything is subjective.
Moore is just a bit louder—and definitely unpolished—than most.

Let me try putting it this way:
As a documentary filmmaker, you develop this intuition—you sense that something significant is about to unfold in a specific spot. So, you show up, roll the camera, and wait. Most of the time? Nothing happens. But then—don't hold your breath—this one guy walks down the street right toward a group of cops. He approaches them and says to one of the officers, "Hey, Mike, I just absolutely wrecked my nine-year-old sister." The officers just stare at him like, "Get lost, moron." But he won't stop. He keeps going: "She was spinning like a cement mixer!" Mike tells him, "Cut it out," but the guy isn't finished: "The kid's a beast—three times wasn't enough, she wanted more." That’s when Mike hits him with a baton, the rest of the squad jumps in, and they cuff him on the spot.

Since you're playing the part of Michael Moore making a documentary on police brutality—you’d probably just cut right to a clip of a baton strike.

My apologies for the vulgarity—I tried to explain this politely, but it just wasn't working.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Come on, don't overreact—it’s not like he personally showed up at your doorstep to sit on you.

No, it’s not him—it's my neighbor, who watched that movie and felt the sudden urge to do exactly that. Figuratively speaking, of course.

Richard Hernandez13 said:"The best way to respond to a movie is to make your own"—that crazy Frenchman said it, and he was right. Some people actually listened to him.

First off—you were clearly trying to take a jab at me with that comment—but since we’re all just using handles here, you missed the mark entirely.
And besides—that argument is pure sophistry. Making a movie isn't the same thing as writing a book. Filmmaking costs money—real money—and distribution costs several times that much. If you want proof, just ask Michael Moore and the massive machine he runs.

Nicholas Hill5 said:I'm almost entirely with you on this. There’s just one catch—if it turns out that what the director is trying to force on us is actually the truth, then we might have to admit that this kind of manipulation was justified. Or even worse—that it was the only way to show Americans the reality of the situation.

I’m feeling particularly descriptive this morning. So:

Chubby little Mike received a 5,000-piece puzzle for his birthday. The box featured a picture of George W. Bush and osama bin Laden sharing a tender, wet kiss. Now, Mike set to work on the puzzle. But being the anxious kid he is—desperate to show his mom how smart he is—he didn't bother checking if the pieces actually fit. He just shoved them together as fast as possible. By the end, he had some glaring gaps, so he grabbed a puzzle of two little white kittens from his last birthday and used those pieces to plug the holes. He proudly showed off his "skill" to his parents, siblings, aunts, and uncles. They knew what the picture was supposed to look like because they saw the box, so they praised him anyway—mostly because it's easier than dealing with his outbursts. It's not easy for him; his awkward looks make him a target for kids at school, which just fuels his anxiety and makes him lash out at home. But in this scenario, everyone sits down at the table, happy and satisfied, to eat cake.

northerncrane4 said:I’m feeling particularly poetic this morning. Here goes nothing:

Chubby little Mike got a 5,000-piece puzzle for his birthday. The box featured a picture of George W. Bush and the terrorist osama bin Laden sharing a tender, wet kiss. Being the impatient kid he is, Mike wanted to finish it fast just to show off how smart he was to his mom. He didn't bother checking if the pieces actually fit; he just shoved them together however they came. By the end, there were gaping holes everywhere, so he grabbed a different puzzle—one with two cute white kittens—and used those pieces to plug the gaps. He proudly showed the finished product to his parents, siblings, aunts, and uncles. They saw the box and knew what the image was supposed to be, so they gave him a pat on the back since they knew how much he craved validation. It didn't cost them much to play along. It's not easy for him; his awkward looks make him a target for bullies at school, which leaves him anxious and prone to outbursts at home. So, everyone sat down at the table, happy and satisfied, and ate cake.

Great analogy, but you're starting to pick up some of Moore's traits. And I don't mean his weight...😉

Nicholas Hill5 said:Nice analogy—but you’re starting to pick up some of Moore's traits. And I'm not talking about his weight...😉

And? Sweat? 😛

northerncrane4 said:So what? Sweat? 😛

Then he went and proudly showed off his skills to his mom, dad, brothers, sisters, uncles, and aunts. 😛

Nicholas Hill5 said:Then he proudly showed off his skills to his mom, dad, brothers, sisters, uncles, and aunts. 😛

The difference—my characters are fictional. 🙂

northerncrane4 said:I’m feeling particularly descriptive this morning. So, here goes nothing:

Little chubby Mike got a 5,000-piece puzzle for his birthday. The box featured a picture of George W. Bush and the terrorist osama bin Laden locked in a tender embrace, sharing a wet kiss. Now, Mike gets to work on this puzzle. But because he’s a high-strung kid who just wants to show off how smart he is to his mom, he isn't really paying attention to whether the pieces actually fit. He’s just shoving them together as fast as he can, grabbing whatever is closest. By the end, he "finishes" it, but there are these glaring holes left over. So, what does he do? He grabs a different puzzle—one with two little white kittens on it that he got last year—and uses those pieces to plug the gaps. Then, he proudly shows it off to his parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and cousins, bragging about how skilled he is. They all saw the box, so they knew what the picture was *supposed* to look like, and since they know how much Mike craves validation, they just cheer him on. It’s a small price to pay to keep the peace. Honestly, it’s hard on him; he’s an awkward kid, the kind the kids at school avoid, which just fuels his anxiety and makes him act out at home. But in that moment, everyone sits down at the table, happy and satisfied, and they eat cake.

👍

That’s a damn good analogy. That is exactly what Michael Moore did. He "shook up" the audience with data, numbers, and imagery, making it all incredibly suggestive. I’d even go as far as to say he masterfully drove the point home every single time he criticized Bush by cutting to clips of the President rolling his eyes, playing golf, or repeating that "we gotta smoke 'em out" line...

But you have to admit, certain things in Fahrenheit 9/11 aren't illogical or untrue (even if that's not really the point being discussed here, but rather the work itself).

L. NimoyInvadesMetal~ said:But you have to admit—some things in Fahrenheit 9/11 aren't illogical or untrue (even if that’s not really the point here, just the film itself).

That's exactly the issue. Once you see them twist blatant facts three separate times—even in spots that aren't central to the plot—you start questioning everything else. At least, I do.

northerncrane4 said:That’s exactly the point. Once you see someone blatantly twist the facts three times over—especially on points that aren't even central to the argument—you start questioning everything else they say. At least, I do.

I’m telling you, you’re starting to remind me more and more of Moore...🙂

Nicholas Hill5 said:I’ll say it again—you remind me more and more of Moore...🙂

We're all just high-society socialists living in million-dollar mansions—same difference.

I’m just bringing this discussion back up because I want to clear things up a little bit...

northerncrane4 said:First off, I think you were trying to take a jab at me with that comment, but since we’re all just using handles here, you really missed the mark.

I am so sorry, but I honestly wasn't trying to "take a jab" at you at all.
What I was actually getting at is that there have been a few movies made that deal directly with the facts and arguments presented in Fahrenheit 9/11, attempting to debunk them—whether they succeed or not isn't really the point right now.
In my opinion, that's actually the best way to respond to a movie by Moore. If he's using a film to push his own perspective, then for the sake of public debate, it's vital that someone else uses the same medium to present the opposing view.

The real issue, though, is that the current US administration doesn't have any interest in having a debate about these kinds of things.

...
It just dawned on me that you're one of those "Finnish agents," which probably explains why you felt like I was trying to put you down.
Please believe me when I say that truly wasn't my intention.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Look, I wasn't trying to "put you down."

Believe me—that wasn't my intention.

It sounded like "go make your own movie, then get back to me." Fine—you say that wasn't the intent.

But that's still how it came across.

😎

Honestly, you don't even need to go through the whole hassle of filming a movie yourself; you can just throw your full support behind the ones that are already telling the truth and speaking for people like us.

😎