PDA

View Full Version : "fahrenheit 9/11" = propaganda



Fett
07-02-2004, 09:12 AM
With all of the hype regarding “Fahrenheit 9/11”, I thought I would contribute a personal analysis of the film. Any thoughts or comments regarding this post are welcome.

Although I consider myself to be a conservative, I am opposed to many of President Bush’s policies and proposed legislation.

However, the film was mostly a charade of seemingly negative images of Bush systematically and methodically used in conjunction with “catchy” music to elicit spiteful reactions from liberal audiences. In many instances, video clips showing Bush enjoying life outside the White House were used to portray him as a fun-loving idiot. However, behavior such as this is normal for most human beings, including presidents past and present. Are presidents not allowed to laugh, smile, and joke with their families and friends? In one instance, a short clip shows Bush at what appears to be a racetrack, joking with his friends and family. Although his behavior is completely normal, Moore is attempting to depict Bush in a negative light, using Bush’s smile and laughter to feed the notion that he is not dedicated to his job and is rather dumb. The close-minded people of the audience sneer at these types of images because whenever they see Bush laughing or joking around, they immediately associate it with his supposedly stupid disposition. This is propaganda, plain and simple.

Further, I was disgusted at the use of soldier interviews to cast a negative light on American soldiers and to discredit the legitimacy of the war. Soldiers were shown describing the feelings associated with combat after images of wounded and dead Iraqi civilians were shown. This juxtaposition was meant to discredit the actions of the soldiers and to portray them as mindless killers that are not the real people deserving of our sympathy. Moore took the disparaging of American troops to the next level when he played a song that American soldiers listened to while showing bombs exploding and things aflame. This “artistic” piece was meant to show the cruel natures of the soldiers serving in Iraq – their supposed callousness towards the people and their structures and belongings.

Although I found the aforementioned things in the film distasteful and occasionally angering, I think the film overall was well made. If anything, it is good for provoking discussion about some of the most important issues of our time.

Rocket Racoon
07-02-2004, 09:53 AM
Enough F911 crap already...

RR

pogue
07-02-2004, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Fett
Further, I was disgusted at the use of soldier interviews to cast a negative light on American soldiers and to discredit the legitimacy of the war. Soldiers were shown describing the feelings associated with combat after images of wounded and dead Iraqi civilians were shown. This juxtaposition was meant to discredit the actions of the soldiers and to portray them as mindless killers that are not the real people deserving of our sympathy. Moore took the disparaging of American troops to the next level when he played a song that American soldiers listened to while showing bombs exploding and things aflame. This “artistic” piece was meant to show the cruel natures of the soldiers serving in Iraq – their supposed callousness towards the people and their structures and belongings.

You completely missed the point.

trainevenharder
07-02-2004, 10:04 AM
I don't think he was trying to take anything away from the soldiers with the interview.

I guess it's personal in the sense that everyone will interpret it differently but I felt he was trying to show the contrast between the White House's depiction of the war (Laser guided missiles, no collateral damage, etc) and the actual truth as described by the soldiers.

But I agree, I think he could have made his point without the "let them burn, no water for them" song.

FiveOneNine
07-02-2004, 10:21 AM
The "Burn, mother****er, burn" song was absolutely sickening.

F9/11 is only propaghanda if you are uninformed and take everything Moore presents in the most literal fashion. People allow themselves to be mislead even when that is not the intention of the person who made it. I could write a story about cars, and some people would read it and think it was a religous story. People will believe whatever they want to believe. Those who are informed will take what Moore presents and understand what the message is; those who are not informed will take what Moore presents and spin it into something completely different.

Debaser
07-02-2004, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Rocket Racoon
Enough F911 crap already...

RR

Hey, at least he saw the movie before making a judement. I have seen too many posts regarding Moore (on both sides) making judgments before they have seen the movie.

Fett
07-02-2004, 11:29 AM
How did I "completely miss the point" Pogue? Elaborate.

FiveOneNine
07-02-2004, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Fett
How did I "completely miss the point" Pogue? Elaborate.

The point was not to demonize the soldiers in Iraq. I'm going to let pogue take this one though, it is his comment.

Fett
07-02-2004, 11:35 AM
In response to FiveOneNine, how did I misconstrue what was presented? I do agree that people will undoubtedly interpret the film differently. However, what purpose did showing American soldiers joke about the dead serve for the overall purpose of the movie, other than to make them look bad? There is no misconstruing that...Moore wanted them to look bad.

fkarcha
07-02-2004, 11:43 AM
Almost everything is propaganda. Advertising, news, war, etc.

FiveOneNine
07-02-2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Fett
In response to FiveOneNine, how did I misconstrue what was presented? I do agree that people will undoubtedly interpret the film differently. However, what purpose did showing American soldiers joke about the dead serve for the overall purpose of the movie, other than to make them look bad? There is no misconstruing that...Moore wanted them to look bad.

What is it he wants to make look bad? The soldiers or the war? He clearly sympathizes with most soldiers who have been sent there without proper preparation and have been forced to stay there far longer than expected. He also shows the mother of one of the soldiers grieving over her son's sacrifice for a war that is, to say the least, uncertain. Does this really shed a bad light on soldiers? This clip shows the elements of war that the mainstream media neglects. The war is presented as some sort of freedom crusade with the heroic American soldiers liberating the Iraqis from a brutal dictator. Moore is pointing out that this is not the case. His point is not to demonize soldiers, but to debunk the glorified message of war that is presented in the media. It also shows how the soldiers have fallen victim to what is clearly propaghanda that allows them to justify what they do.

karlm
07-02-2004, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by FiveOneNine
The "Burn, mother****er, burn" song was absolutely sickening.

F9/11 is only propaghanda if you are uninformed and take everything Moore presents in the most literal fashion. People allow themselves to be mislead even when that is not the intention of the person who made it. I could write a story about cars, and some people would read it and think it was a religous story. People will believe whatever they want to believe. Those who are informed will take what Moore presents and understand what the message is; those who are not informed will take what Moore presents and spin it into something completely different.

Now this is where the line gets blurry, in one post its a documentary, which in essence is to present documented facts without bias. Then next we have to interpret what Moore's true meaning is. So which is it? What ever happens to fit the arguement at the time?
I watch documentaries all the time on the History channel and have never had to try to decide what point the director is really trying to get accross.

darkforce
07-02-2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by karlm

I watch documentaries all the time on the History channel and have never had to try to decide what point the director is really trying to get accross.

I agree but I doubt the History channel airs documentarys on topics as politically charged as the Iraq war.

When you watch a Nazi documentary, it's a no brainer to understand where the directory i going :)

wayoutwest
07-02-2004, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by karlm
Now this is where the line gets blurry, in one post its a documentary, which in essence is to present documented facts without bias. Then next we have to interpret what Moore's true meaning is. So which is it? What ever happens to fit the arguement at the time?
I watch documentaries all the time on the History channel and have never had to try to decide what point the director is really trying to get accross.

thats because hitler documentaries are historical. moore's fims are contemporary, big difference.

japimperialist
07-02-2004, 10:38 PM
Man we should get more thought provocing post like this on this forum.

I agree with you completely. Michale Moore is fat, he is no bodybuilder, so anything he says is propaganda. This is exactly why I only listen to CNN so that I can completely agree with Bush'es extrodinary views.

eric9c1
07-03-2004, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by japimperialist
Man we should get more thought provocing post like this on this forum.

I agree with you completely. Michale Moore is fat, he is no bodybuilder, so anything he says is propaganda. This is exactly why I only listen to CNN so that I can completely agree with Bush'es extrodinary views.

Time to shut up.

I watch on the History/Discovery channel "contemporary" documentaries all the time. They had one about Saddam up until he was toppled, and then just a bit after just the other day. It was VERY good, I thought.

I also saw one on the first Iraqi war recently.. but that was maybe a year or so ago.

gluon999
07-03-2004, 10:29 AM
true, most of Moore's film is propaganda, but so is EVERY THING ELSE in this country!

No need to make the 895th thread about the movie.

FiveOneNine
07-03-2004, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by wayoutwest
thats because hitler documentaries are historical. moore's fims are contemporary, big difference.

Bingo.

Bionik
07-03-2004, 07:25 PM
Moore takes only the negative and puts it all together in one big cluster****. It's pretty bad...

FiveOneNine
07-03-2004, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Bionik
Moore takes only the negative and puts it all together in one big cluster****. It's pretty bad...

Not always. I mean, in BFC he debunks claims that Canada has less guns etc.. It's like an argumentative essay. You try not to contradict your own thesis.

MonsterStud
07-03-2004, 07:51 PM
Yea....but he could change his thesis from "Guns cause crime " to something else. Instead of an attack on the second amendment he could switch gears to Capitalism cause crime and violence or Racism causes crime and violence. The main thing is to show a negative view of the US.

Of course, it can't be racism because the thought that minorities commit a lot of crime is a fiction created by the media(according to Mike in the movie:be scared of black because of COPS show)

I don't recall that he came to any strong conclusion.

pharm
07-03-2004, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by fkarcha
Almost everything is propaganda. Advertising, news, war, etc.

I realize some things were spun, but.....

How can you dispute the relationships between cabinet members, Bush, the Saudis, Bin Landen family, etc. Seems pretty suspicous to me, there was definately some favortism there.

Another thing that pissed me off: The scene with the meeting talking about the Iraq contracts and all the money companies can make over there. People are dying so people can go over there and make millions?

My biggest reaction was when the one soldier died, they sent his final paycheck to his family and they docked him 5 days pay, since he was killed and didn't work the whole month?

I guess I don't see how Bush made Iraq an "imminent" threat with WMD that haven't been found and no link to Al queda.
Saddam was killing people with chemical weapons in the 80's and 90's and we didn't seem too concerned. He has been unfairly jailing, torturing, and killing people for 15+ years, but now he's a threat to our freedom? Didn't we supply them weapons?

Why didn't we take care of him during Desert Storm?

mr_moto_civic
07-04-2004, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by pharm
Another thing that pissed me off: The scene with the meeting talking about the Iraq contracts and all the money companies can make over there. People are dying so people can go over there and make millions?


Haha! That scene has all the flavor of a multi-level marketing rah-rah meeting. You know, one of those Amway or Herbalife pep rallys where they tell ya to jump in and get the cash.

MonsterStud
07-04-2004, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by pharm
I realize some things were spun, but.....

How can you dispute the relationships between cabinet members, Bush, the Saudis, Bin Landen family, etc. Seems pretty suspicous to me, there was definately some favortism there.

Another thing that pissed me off: The scene with the meeting talking about the Iraq contracts and all the money companies can make over there. People are dying so people can go over there and make millions?

My biggest reaction was when the one soldier died, they sent his final paycheck to his family and they docked him 5 days pay, since he was killed and didn't work the whole month?

I guess I don't see how Bush made Iraq an "imminent" threat with WMD that haven't been found and no link to Al queda.
Saddam was killing people with chemical weapons in the 80's and 90's and we didn't seem too concerned. He has been unfairly jailing, torturing, and killing people for 15+ years, but now he's a threat to our freedom? Didn't we supply them weapons?

Why didn't we take care of him during Desert Storm?

Really, almost everything you think is wrong. Read up on it.

Here is a little food for though: I'm reading a book called Raid on the Sun. It is about Isreal's bombing and distruction of Saddam's FRENCH BUILT NUCLEAR REACTOR back in 1981.

You see, Saddam had a woodie for the idea of NUKING Isreal and Restoring Iraq to it's proper glory. Israel had a sneaky suspicion that this reactor would be used for more than power needs. Not hard to figure out since Iraq sit's on the second largest reserves of oil thus negating any need for a nuclear power plant. Not hard to figure out UNLESS YOUR THE FRENCH. I guess the 100's of millions clouded their judgement.

So...Isreal decided that since France decided to sell WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM to Iraq they better do something. They used 8 US made F-16's to destroy the reactor befor it went on line. THANK YOU ISREAL!

Just a thought: It's a good chance Saddam would like to be in the nuclear club. Maybe that why some of his men met with some North Koreans within the last 2 years. His dream is over now.

Micheal Moore doesn't mention any of this though.....

Bionik
07-04-2004, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by FiveOneNine
Not always. I mean, in BFC he debunks claims that Canada has less guns etc.. It's like an argumentative essay. You try not to contradict your own thesis.

One big, negative thesis...