PDA

View Full Version : Saw F-911, was interviewed by the local paper


Mitchell
06-30-2004, 05:21 PM
Well, today was a day special to me for two reasons. I not only saw Farenheit 911, which finally opened in my local theater, and was packed, even at an 11am showing, but I also got my picture and comments posted in our local paper, the New Era. Apparently, all the furor over 911 first not being allowed here, and then finally opening, attracted the media's attention, and there were two reporters from the Era taking comments from theater patrons. I went to the movie with my friend Russ, (TMF member Russy) and my mom, and all three of us were quoted in the paper. That will be cool. I've never had my picture in the paper before, so of course I'll be picking up a copy tomorrow. Anyhow, enough fanfare. Let me cut to the chase of my impressions of the film:

While no doubt controversial, I greatly enjoyed F 911. The movie had some highly satarical and comical moments, but also some very important, and disturbing ones. Granted, Michael Moore did make plenty of derisive comments about George W Bush, many of them in jest and meaning to sound humorous. However, the film also conveyed a much deeper and more serious message, that being who our leaders and former leaders trust and do business with, and how their actions affect the country.
According to the film, W's father, former president George H. W. Bush, had close business ties with the Saudis, some of whom were members of the Bin Laden family. While of course the business partners of Bush who are members of the Bin Laden family, have no control over Osama, it is quite unsettling to know that a former president, and the current president's family, would have such close financial ties to the family of one of the world's most known and wanted terrorists.
Another very disturbing image of the film was our own soldiers treatment of people under the patriot act. Moore showed innocent Iraqs who were terrorized and harrassed by American soldiers, as well as an innocent American who was brought in for questioning, merely for expressing his views against the administration and the war. While the Patriot Act may be meant to protect, there is a very fine line, and Moore shows at times how it goes too far.
Moore admittedly makes certain very strong statements in the film, some of which Iam not going to post here, due to the fact that they are controversial, and would be subjected to mod editing. I will say that while the audience I viewed the movie with was admittedly mostly Democratic, (I found this out from listening to the interviews given to the paper) the paper which covered the movie, was the Republican afternoon local daily, and even the reporter I spoke to was disturbed by the film, and some of the messages conveyed. While each individual will make the decision about whether or not to see the film, I feel it is important to see, because it conveys a message, and may well serve to be an eye opener. While admittedly most who vote will likely stay loyal to their political party, regardless of the film, or its message, the people I spoke to, including the media sources, feel that it could well serve to aid in swaying certain undecided or independent voters who voted for Bush last time, into the Kerry column. Iam sure Iam going to get hammered, with people posting:" Mitch is bias, Mitch is an idiot, Mitch doesnt know what he's talking about" My response to that is that while Iam admittedly Democratic, I also tried to keep an open mind before viewing the film, and, after watching it, it made me more determined to vote for John Kerry, and served to strengthen my disdain for Mr George W Bush and the current administration. During my interview with the Era, I made a strong point that the most important issue for me when I made my comment to Regal cinemas about F 911 was the issue of censorship, which is why I spoke out as I did. The woman who interviewed me, who would not give her own political views, attempting to be impartial, agreed. By not showing the film, it was a violation of free speech, and freedom of the press.
In closing, I feel it is an important film. Those who are loyal Republicans, and plan to vote for Bush anyway, are best advised to stay away, because it does not paint the president or his associates in a very favorable light. If, however, you are undecided, for Kerry, or even perhaps Nader, and are not a staunch Bush loyalist, I highly recommend the film. It can be an eye opener, and, while it may be dismissed as a small, independent, insignificant film, might well serve to perhaps sway votes or even a close election, as certain undecided voters could well be swayed away from voting for Mr George W Bush after seeing this movie, and the message it conveys.


Mitch

Neutron
07-01-2004, 04:27 AM
Regal NOT showing the film is NOT a violation of free speech OR freedom of the press. It's a PRIVATE business making it's OWN decision. This is NOT in any way shape or form a Constitutional violation!

Tron

venray
07-01-2004, 08:25 AM
In no way is it a violation of the first amendment. that would be if congress imposed a law forbidding the release of such movie.

If you believe politicians were exerting undo pressure, note that threre was just as much pressure exerted by left wing extremists to make sure the film was shown.Checks and balanced and allowed by law.

Also note the Moore has publically thanked those that have called so much attention to the film as it has caused many more to see the film.

michaelmoore.com

Tron's point is that you cant continuously say it's a viloation of rights. It is an expression of those rights for all Americans to give their view, whether they be politicians or political extremists.

All other personal comments are being deleted from this thread. Agree or disagree with the posts do not attack the poster directly.

Ray

venray
07-01-2004, 03:35 PM
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

This should clear things up. It's a good read. I highly recommend it.

Ray

MrMacphisto
07-01-2004, 05:14 PM
I agree that a private institution has the right to "censor" any political view it chooses to. However, if the government itself (or a powerful group within the government) is paying companies to censor a view, then the issue gets fuzzier. I'm not saying that this is going on, but at the same time, this is a very possible scenario.

Mitchell
07-01-2004, 10:25 PM
The article in which I was quoted appeared in this afternoon's New Era. Iam not going to specifically quote what my mother said word for word, because she made some pretty strong statements to the paper that may be controversial, and would stimulate too much argument on this board, but I will post my direct comments.
I told the newspaper quote: " You try to be objective, but it's hard when you feel as I do about Bush. I feel it is extremely important for undecided voters to see this film, as those who are "on the fence" might change their views after seeing it"
My point in these comments is such. Iam a staunch Democrat, and I knew before I saw this film, that I was voting for John Kerry, regardless of my impressions. After seeing the film, it only served to confirm my decision to vote for him.
Iam aware of this. Democrats already have issues with Bush, and Republicans will vote for him regardless. This I accept. I do want to make one statement. Whether you voted for Bush or Gore in 2000, if you are at all undecided about who you are voting for this November, I strongly recommend seeing this film. I'm not saying that it will serve to influence all or most undecided voters, but it might well make them think twice, and long and hard, before pulling the lever in November. I feel that is a most valid point.

Mitch

drew70
07-02-2004, 01:40 AM
I do want to make one statement. Whether you voted for Bush or Gore in 2000, if you are at all undecided about who you are voting for this November, I strongly recommend seeing this film. I'm not saying that it will serve to influence all or most undecided voters, but it might well make them think twice, and long and hard, before pulling the lever in November.Mitch, wouldn't it be better for people to see the movie AFTER the election? That way they could make their decisions based on their own interpretations of the candidates, rather than those of an admittedly biased movie producer. Would that not be the more reasonable and fair admonition?

venray
07-02-2004, 01:42 AM
I believe I have said the same....

We shouldnt let extremist views from either side help us to decide who runs the country...too dangerous.

Ray

august spies
07-02-2004, 01:48 AM
whether its the government or some corporation they are both powerful and have simliar interests and therefore whether the government censors it or a corporation censors it doesnt matter. its still censorship. in many cases corporate censorship is much more dangerous to the population because they are more powerful and have more influence and more of a say on how information is distributed.

venray
07-02-2004, 01:53 AM
WordNet Dictionary
Noun 1. censorship - counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy
Synonyms: censoring, security review
2. censorship - deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances
Synonyms: censoring

Doesnt fit your definition. Speaking one's mind as an individual or a group is not censorship. Protesting against what you believe to be wrong is not censorship. Boycotting a film or products is not censorship.

The fact that we CAN do these things shows just the opposite.

august spies
07-02-2004, 02:02 AM
yes me boycotting a film by not going to see it is of course not censorship because im not the one showing it. however if it were my responsibility to show the film to millions of people, and i didnt like its politics because they may or may not be against me so i decide for millions of other people that they cant see it. that is censorship. its supression of you dont like the word censorship.. if the state owned movie theaters and they censored it, people would be pissed.. its the same thing

venray
07-02-2004, 02:04 AM
It is not censorship. It is "free enterprise" another concept that is confusing to non capitalists I fear.......

I own a theater (lets say)

A new film comes out that is highly sexual in nature.


Because of my own set of values I choose not to show that film in my theater...

Free enterprise. I dont want that type of stuff on my screens so I dont show it just to make a lot of money.

Same difference. It is not censorship...I have niether deleted nor changed the content of the film, I have merely chosen not to screen it.I have not decided that anyone cant see it. They just cant see it in MY theater. I have NO resposibility to show it. NO ONE has the right to Dictate that I MUST show it.

Ray

august spies
07-02-2004, 08:04 PM
well thats the main problem with capitalism.. access to the means of production. but thats another debate

silence (meaning non reporting of a story or refusing to show a certain documentry) is usually the worst kind of censorship

venray
07-02-2004, 08:24 PM
Perhaps, but that is your opinion...not a fact.