Films like 'Fahrenheit 9/11' are turning movie theaters into political stumping grounds

When Lion's Gate Films went before the ratings board this week to appeal the R given Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore's hotly debated documentary about the Iraq war, the studio made an unusual argument.

Moore would not delete one profane utterance or disturbing image to appease the board. Nevertheless, president Tom Ortenberg argued unsuccessfully, the rating should be changed to the less restrictive PG-13 because the film is important and deserves to be widely seen.

"We need more public debate of the issues facing us today, not less debate," he said. "The 15- and 16-year-olds who are going to be asked to fight in the next war need to be allowed a chance to see what this war is like."

If that sounds more like a political argument than an artistic one, it's in keeping with the film's spirit. The scathing attack on President Bush is being released with all the trappings of a campaign event.

Ronald Reagan once joked about the thin line between politics and entertainment. This year, in the nation's movie theaters, the line has been obliterated. A wide array of politically tinged films is joining summer's traditionally escapist fare.

Some were made with the clear intent of influencing debate, if not the presidential election. It remains to be seen if movies can sway voters, but either way, film is emerging as an important voice of liberal politics, just as talk radio became a medium of conservative political expression in the 1980s and '90s.

Robert J. Thompson, professor of television and popular culture at Syracuse University, says this is a far-reaching and culturally significant development: "The other side of the argument seems to have finally found its medium."

Fahrenheit 9/11 is the most prominent example. Never before has such a nakedly political movie been released this close to an election. Sight unseen, it has inflamed passions.

The California-based Move America Forward lobbied theaters not to show it. Moore hired former Bill Clinton political advisers Chris Lehane and Mark Fabiani to set up a "war room" to counter attacks on the movie's accuracy.

Although Ortenberg said Fahrenheit 9/11 opened yesterday on 868 screens -- the most ever for a documentary -- Sal Russo, a Republican political consultant, maintained that the Move America Forward effort was successful.

"We've increased awareness that the film is neither a documentary or entertainment but only an effort by Moore, as he says, to help to defeat President Bush, even if it's at the cost of our war effort against terrorism," said Russo.

Both sides are using election-style campaign tools, including the Internet, talk radio and cable news shows.

MoveOn, a liberal, Internet-based advocacy group, is urging members to pack theaters this weekend and to hand out leaflets. The group will attempt to mobilize moviegoers by inviting them to house parties across the country on Monday. Moore will address the gatherings -- which MoveOn estimates at 1,000 -- and answer questions via a conference call. 'The Hunting of the President' premiere, June 16, New York

Lion's Gate hired Mario Cuomo, the former New York governor, to help appeal the R rating and to promote the movie on shows such as CNBC's Hardball. Cuomo helped craft the studio's statement and would've delivered it, had the ratings board not banned him from the hearing.

Before Fahrenheit 9/11, the year's biggest political movie was The Day After Tomorrow, a disaster epic about global warming that got more ink on op-ed pages than on entertainment pages. It featured a president and vice president who seemed based on Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Coming up are the documentaries The Hunting of the President -- about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" to damage Bill Clinton -- and Bush's Brain, a critical appraisal of political adviser Karl Rove.

Next month, Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep will star in Jonathan Demme's remake of The Manchurian Candidate, a political thriller whose updated plot involves the first Gulf War. Filmmaker John Sayles' new Silver City offers an unflattering portrait of a Republican gubernatorial candidate who resembles Bush. It's scheduled for September release. Sayles told ABC news he wrote the script in two weeks because it was important to rush the film into theaters before the election, "just to get into the conversation at the right time."

One of the few political movies with a conservative bent, a low-budget documentary titled Michael Moore Hates America, doesn't yet have a distributor. First-time Minneapolis filmmaker Mike Wilson turns the tables on Moore, needling the firebrand director and subjecting him to the same critical treatment Moore has given to corporate and political targets.

"The movie theater is a terrific place for public discussion and debate about the issues facing our country today," said Ortenberg, who welcomes the efforts of MoveOn and others on behalf of Fahrenheit 9/11.

The explosion of political movies seems part of a larger phenomenon. Perhaps not since the 1960s has politics been so central to American life. Events such as the Monica Lewinsky scandal and Clinton's subsequent impeachment, the controversial 2000 presidential election and the response to 9/11 have galvanized the public.

"Politics has become like an enormous miniseries, very much in the public eye," said Thompson.

Sales of political books have mushroomed. Political debate fills radio airwaves and is a mainstay of cable news. Political satire is flourishing. Statistics show that young people get less information from newspapers and television news programs than previous generations, but turn increasingly to liberal and conservative Web sites.

"Twenty years ago, we only got a little dose of politics on television -- a half hour on the evening news," Thompson said. Now, the rise of cable television, talk radio and the Internet "allows so much more information about politics to be out there."

As the number and type of news sources grow and audiences become fragmented, the traditional goal of objectivity has been devalued. People increasingly seek their news from sources that match their ideology.

Fox, the top ranked cable news network, has a conservative slant. The Daily Show, Jon Stewart's satirical news program on Comedy Central, is popular among young liberals. Conservative and liberal Internet users turn to openly biased sites such as the Drudge Report, TomPaine.com and Buzzflash.com.

Moore's work is firmly in the trend of advocacy journalism. He is at the forefront of filmmakers changing the definition of documentary film. Though he is probably now the most influential documentarian, his work angers some more traditional directors. Pioneer Albert Maysles, for example, called Moore in a 1998 interview "the most evil man in the business. He targets people for his own purpose. His point of view is everything."

Russo, a leader of the effort last year to block the showing of a miniseries about Ronald Reagan on network television, maintains that Moore's point of view isn't the problem. Russo doesn't object to Farenheit because it attacks Bush, he said, but because it might undermine the war on terrorism.

"We're in a time in American history when we need national resolve," Russo said. "We just celebrated the anniversary of D-Day. Just as during World War II, even though there were dissenters, we had to muster national resolve to defeat fascism. Now we need national resolve to win the war on terrorism. That's pretty non-negotiable."

Thompson thinks factionalism -- the way liberals and conservatives tune each other out and listen only to opinions they agree with -- is potentially harmful.

"A truly informed person wants to listen to ideas he disagrees with," he said. "It would be a healthy thing for Rush Limbaugh's audience to go to Michael Moore's movie and for Michael Moore's audience to listen to Bill O'Reilly."

If the American people are so weak-minded as to be swayed by Lumpy's propaganda piece and toss out the President, then they deserve what they get.

If the German people are so weak-minded as to be swayed by the Nazi propaganda machine and embrace fascism, then they deserve what they get.

If the Arab people are so weak-minded as to be swayed by the propaganda on Al Jazeera and support terrorists, then they deserve what they get.

If the Russian people, and those in Hollywoood, are so weak-minded as to be swayed by Uncle Joe Stalin's propaganda and be a bunch of red dupes, then they deserve what they get...

Time Magazine asked:

They have never posed this question of the left. Even the Unabomber was considered a "mad Genuis".

The novel just celebrated its 50th anniversary. It is a classic. It has been hijacked by Michael Moore.

He says that Americans are a bunch of wimps and p***ies and that if black passengers had been on those planes on September 11th, that they would never have hit the WTC.

Michael says he is being unfairly shouted down in America. He should consider this an opposition to his attempts at hijacking the national will. A smack down of sorts.

Moore As Infantile Leftist and Neo-anarchist

He epitomised what one of his critics called "infantile leftism", an egotistical school of politics which is concerned principally with making gestures; attempting to shock (think Michael Moore) and constantly criticising, but never proffering a coherent alternative. J G Merquior labelled Foucault a quintessential neo-anarchist.

Whereas traditional anarchists were inspired by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism and Kropotkin's co-operatives, and took pride in their embrace of science and humane Enlightenment values, Foucault owes more to the egotistical, destructive spirit of Mikhail Bakunin, whose anarchism luxuriated in its negativity and irrationality.

Its beliefs consist entirely of what it opposes. This legacy can be seen in today's "anti- capitalist" demonstrators, who are clear about what they seek to destroy, but rather vague as to what they want to create.

...............................................................http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1160760/posts?page=3#3

Glodwater....the Daisy/Nuke commercial. And that's just for starters.

Nixon...I think that you either didn't/don't know or have forgotten what the extreme HATRED against Nixon,from the time of his race against Helen Gahangan Brown,was like.The visceral HATERED and lies and mud slinging against Nixon was HUGE!

The lies and mud,thrown at Jefferson ( he fathered a child with his slave[NOT so at all,but still believed now,even after DNA proved otherwise!} and other things,that no one remembers anymore)were horrid,so was what was done to Andrew Jackson and his wife ( she was called a whore,an adulteress,he was called a whore monger,an adulterer and worse!),Grover Cleveland,and many,many others,were as bad.

Jefferson and Adams were political opponents,who were at each other's throats,so badly,that they didn't speak for decades.Marshall published a five volume set,slamming Jefferson,which drove Tom nuts! And it was Jefferson who said,"Party animosities here have raised a wall...between those who differ in political sentiments". Sound familiar? he also said that one man's truth is another man's slander.

And Jefferson,for all of the myths about him,was NOT a Simon pure man,without lots of warts and failings.None of the FFs were.

Heck, the Dems are using the exactly same lies they used to throw at Reagan,against President Bush,now. Both men were/are supposedly stupid,puppets,liars,morons, traitors,fools who are going to get us all killed,keeping down the poor,hate women,and anything else you have heard said about this president,was used against Reagan.Unlike Mrs. Reagan, Mrs. Bush has escaped the lies and mud slinging.

And then there's FDR,who really,really,REALLY was hated, for good and not so good reasons and slammed by a LOT of people.

From the inception of this nation,politics has been very dirty!And yes,books were written,which besmirched presidents.I suggest that you and anyone else who doesn't know this history,read " AFFAIRS OF HONOR ",by Joanne B. Freeman.

broadsword mentioned:

Seriously, though, there has never been such an insane and hateful concerted onslaught against the president. I pray he makes it, but I fear for this next election. There are so many malinformed idiots out there.

...and that's what I see, too.

My first campaign was for Barry Goldwater, and my small southern town was 80% New Deal Democrat- but other than that nasty "Daisy" commercial, it never approached the mindless rancor and venom I see directed toward President Bush. And it's not just him who is singled out to be reviled: almost anyone on the right, religious people, and patriots ware equally despised, hated, and ridiculed.

Here's a true, local story to illustrate that- our local talk radio has two token Leftists who call all the time and frankly, make pests of themselves.

During the 8 years of darkness that was the Clinton administration, they were on speed, and speed-dial. Anytime anyone criticized anything Clitonian, they were always the next callers up, and hogged the lines until commercial breaks.

Ever since 2000, they've done something of the reverse- hogging the lines, but with every new Democrat talking point, and all the conspiracy/big oil garbage you find on BartCop and DU.

In a way, it's funny that they are reduced to bark-at-the-moon near-lunacy... but these guys are really serious about "Anybody But Boosh!"

And given the guillibility, and inattention of the average voter, it worries me.

I still think it's Boosh's fault.

Burr was a despicable,boorish man,who flip flopped,lied,back stabbed,and was,in general,thoroughly disliked,if not reviled,by everyone who knew him.Like Clinton,he kept petty and major grievances locked in his heart and never let them go.

Think that the 2000 was something new and different,where the people/party who lost kept the flame of vituperation alight for years? Then think again! The election of 1800 was so divisive,that Jefferson and Burr and Adams and Bayard and others kept at the recriminations for decades and it was not only VERY nasty,but dirty and deadly.

Nixon's pillorying goes way back,as I said earlier and was far dirtier than you remember.No,there wasn't a Michael Moore,there wasn't a film,but it really was as bad,if not worse than the Bushbashings of today.There really WAS a LEFT WING CONSPIRACY AGAINST NIXON,BUT THERE WAS NOT A VRWC AGAINST CLINTON! The two just do NOT equate.

Dirty? The attacks on President Bush are warmed over Reagan stuff;except that Laura hasn't been attacked and Nancy was reviled,smeared,lied at about,and took hits for years and years.

The constant smears against Mrs. Jackson, killed her.

The constant smears against President Lincoln and the mentally fragile Mrs. Lincoln,sent her over the edge.

Politics has ALWAYS been filthy,with brief periods of some civility.

Just as every era since Christ was crucified had people believing it was the "end times",every generation seems to think that when there guy gets targeted,politically,is THE worst.It's only when one investigates prior eras,does one realize that it's pretty much business as usual.

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.