Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michael Moore's conspiracy-How did a bad, one-sided movie become so successful?
Jerusalem Post ^ | 8-12-04 | MATTI GOLAN

Posted on 08/12/2004 7:20:50 AM PDT by SJackson

I went to see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, the movie that "exposes" a conspiracy that led to the US war in Iraq. When it was over, I thought about how much I would now like to see a film by Moore about a different conspiracy: how a bad, manipulative, superficial, tendentious, one-sided film like Fahrenheit 9/11 won first prize at the Cannes Film Festival and received phenomenal critical acclaim which turned it into a smash box office hit.

The problem with Moore's film is that it claims to be a documentary – that is, to present a faithful picture of President George W. Bush's road to Baghdad. A documentary must conform to journalistic standards. Except that there are different kinds of journalists and different kinds of standards. There are the standards of the London newspaper The Sun, and there are those of The New York Times.

In his film, Moore adopted the dubious standards of the most inferior of yellow journalism. In his case, however, it is even more serious. The cheap tabloids do not pretend to be what they are not. The format of the newspaper, the size of the headlines, the content and style speak for themselves: We are cheap, we are vulgar, we are manipulative – in short, don't take us too seriously. We just want to entertain you. Moore, on the other hand, purports to be a serious journalist, a crusader. That kind of claim must be backed up by very exacting criteria: proven facts, depth of thought, presentation of a whole, comprehensive picture rather than just one side of it.

There is nothing of this in Moore's film about Bush. Instead of proven facts, we are shown a lot of claims and selective statements, only fragments of statements quoted from Bush and his people. Anything not compatible with the goal Moore marked out for himself was left on the cutting-room floor.

AND THE worst part is the lack of response. The other side doesn't exist in the film. The claims and accusations made against Bush are very serious. A basic journalistic ethic is to always allow the accused side to respond. That is not only an important principle of journalism, it is basic fairness and decency. After all, everything has more than one side. But not with Moore. With him, only his side exists.

I heard people emerging from the film filled with amazement, horrified at Bush's terrible crimes. But I felt that Moore had contemptuously insulted my intelligence. He expected me to accept his thesis without even taking the trouble to do the simple journalist footwork of allowing the claims of the other side to be heard.

After all, I as a viewer am expected to judge for myself who is right, who is telling the truth, and who is trying to pull the wool over my eyes. In his film, I had the distinct feeling that it was Moore rather than Bush who was deceiving me. Perhaps Bush too, but for him I still have no proof, whereas for Moore I have irrefutable evidence that he is conning us all: his film Fahrenheit 9/11.

But let's go back to the original question: How did this film win first prize at the Cannes festival and critical acclaim? The answer is very simple: It's all politics. The people who hand out the prizes, like most critics, belong to a breed known as "liberal intellectuals."

The members of this cult, which in fact controls the world media, traditionally oppose Republican presidents and are, of course, against war. Regardless of the circumstances, whether it is a war of defense or aggression, they are against war. They were against the war in Iraq before it broke out, even before it was realized that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Not for them to delve into the issues, to decide or even to think. They are right simply by virtue of the fact that they are liberal and intellectual (not to be confused with intelligent).

Michael Moore does not have a journalistic conscience. What he does have is an acute nose for what the public wants – and for money. He grasped that a film about Bush would go over well with the prize awarders and critics, certainly in an American election year. He also knew one other thing: that the liberal intellectuals, just like the public, don't want to see both sides; they don't want to hear what Bush has to say. They want Bush's head. So he gave it to them, and they lapped it up.

Unfortunately, I will probably not get what I so crave: a film by Michael Moore about the conspiracy that fashioned the success of Fahrenheit 9/11. And no one could do it better than him.

The writer is the former editor-in-chief of Haaretz and Globes.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fahrenheit911; michaelmoore; moore
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 08/12/2004 7:20:52 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Ask PT Barnum


2 posted on 08/12/2004 7:22:42 AM PDT by Maceman (Too nuanced for a bumper sticker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

It became successful because of the Hate Bush people.


3 posted on 08/12/2004 7:23:53 AM PDT by Piquaboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

I have wondered for a while if Moore is actually just a genius who recognized that there is a tremendous market of adle brained liberals willing to part with large sums of cash and he could get rich on them and that he believes little to none of what he puts out.


4 posted on 08/12/2004 7:25:51 AM PDT by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman

Beat me to it. I'm not suprised by any of theses scumbags anymore. Just angrier.


5 posted on 08/12/2004 7:28:19 AM PDT by SirLurkedalot (God bless our Veterans!!! And God bless America!!! Molon Labe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
There are the standards of the London newspaper The Sun, and there are those of The New York Times.

These days, the Sun's standards are much higher than the New York Times.

6 posted on 08/12/2004 7:29:32 AM PDT by VisualizeSmallerGovernment (Question Liberal Authority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

That's my belief.

He showed a modicum of talent in "Roger and Me" but evidently he had only one film in him. The others have become masterpieces of stroking (and milking) the liberal psyche.


7 posted on 08/12/2004 7:30:50 AM PDT by Oatka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Michael Moore's conspiracy-How did a bad, one-sided movie become so successful?

Take his target audience into account:


8 posted on 08/12/2004 7:31:09 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle (I feel more and more like a revolted Charlton Heston, witnessing ape society for the very first time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Michael Moore is the USA's # 1 war profiteer. Has any other person in the US made more money off the Iraq war than Michael Moore?


9 posted on 08/12/2004 7:34:08 AM PDT by VisualizeSmallerGovernment (Question Liberal Authority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

Genius? No, but con man I would believe.


10 posted on 08/12/2004 7:34:21 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Why? F9/11 was successful because of an avalanche of publicity...both good and bad. People who would never have seen such tripe went to see what all the hubub was about. Moore is a bottom-feeding propagandist who knows how to manipulate the media to his advantage.


11 posted on 08/12/2004 7:35:17 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Watch out for AP trolls :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

To be as successful of a con man as Moore on a huge portion of not only the US, but worlds population you can not be an idiot.


12 posted on 08/12/2004 7:43:25 AM PDT by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Two things jump out at me:

I had the distinct feeling that it was Moore rather than Bush who was deceiving me. Perhaps Bush too, but for him I still have no proof...

AND:

They were against the war in Iraq before it broke out, even before it was realized that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Hidden in the text is the truth: this man has no love for GWB, either. It's only that his hate of Moore is greater, for now, than his hate of the President.

13 posted on 08/12/2004 7:47:30 AM PDT by Old Sarge (My military service is honorable - whether you agree or not...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

The good news is I think it's fading--I see movie ads in papers and under F911 it says "closing Friday", etc. I thought I read it had a 95 per cent drop in business
one week. They had hoped to keep it in theatres till the election though now of course the plan is to put the DVD out in Oct., I belive. Why would they want to put it out just before the... :) ) But I think for the most part the film played to the converted, and DVD sales will do the same. Not sure if it will change any votes.

Up to us to convince our friends who happen to buy this scam that Moore is deceiving them; but they probably
won't listen. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. But hopefully this film won't brainwash enough "undecideds"
to throw the election to Lurch and the Ambulance Chaser.


14 posted on 08/12/2004 7:53:52 AM PDT by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Ya don't have to be a history scholar to be a movie producer, director, actor or critic.
And ya don't have to be factual to win a movie award...apparently even if it's supposedly a "documentary"
And the majority of those who attend movies are not history majors either...to say the least. LOL

Cannes? The French love propaganda, especially if it is waged against Americans and Jews!
So the French are jealous. And because of that jealousy they are resentful instead of being grateful that we have pulled their frog legs out of the fire not once but twice...

Nothing difficult to understand.
In fact, quite elementary my dear, Watson!


15 posted on 08/12/2004 8:03:00 AM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1/5 1st Mar Div. Nam 69&70 Semper Fi http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Cannes? The French love propaganda, especially if it is waged against Americans and Jews!

Where lot's of American commies went when there cover was blown in the late '40's.

16 posted on 08/12/2004 8:05:27 AM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Recent exchange (true)(yesterday):

LIBERAL FRIEND TO ME: "In order to be allowed to vote, everyone should be made to show a ticket stub for 'Fahrenheit 911'.
ME TO LIBERAL EX-FRIEND: "Au contraire, Chad Breath! It should be an immediate disqualifier."
HOWLING MAD LIBERAL EX-FRIEND TO ME: "You can't handle the truth! Why don't you go over to Iraq with your precious warmongers and watch them kill babies?"
ME TO HOWLING MAD LIBERAL LIBERAL EX-FRIEND TURNED MORTAL ENEMY: "Why don't you go down to your precious Planned Parenthood and watch them do exactly the same. It's a lot shorter trip."
HOWLING MAD LIBERAL EX-FRIEND TURNED MORTAL ENEMY FLIPPING THE BIRD AS HE STALKED AWAY TO ME: "F*ck Bush and f*ck you!"
ME TO HOWLING MAD ETC., ETC.: "You've just summarized the entire movie. Now I don't have to see it. Thank you! Nice knowing you!"

Such is the current mind set we have to deal with. We cannot take this election lightly. We must get off our haunches and do battle. Our country is at stake.


17 posted on 08/12/2004 8:10:15 AM PDT by Dionysius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

I finally saw this monstrosity - someone I know downloaded it, so I wanted to see it. Really nothing there that the press doesn't spout on about endlessly. But what I really couldn't get over was just how childish and inane Moore was in his pokes at President Bush. Very hard to take him seriously even if I wanted to because Moore really made a serious ass of himself. Yet somehow, people eat this crap up. I just don't get it.


18 posted on 08/12/2004 8:11:59 AM PDT by Ashamed Canadian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy
"It became successful because of the Hate Bush people."

Yes, this one is a no-brainer.
19 posted on 08/12/2004 8:35:29 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP; Grampa Dave

GI Ping


20 posted on 08/12/2004 8:40:36 AM PDT by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson