On Moore
Haven’t seen the movie but, in the last few days, I have seen Moore himself on TV refer to his Fahrenheit 911 as satire; as a documentary; as humor; and as a satirical documentary. I have also heard him state the facts in the movie are irrefutable, though some have been refuted.
If his message about his movie is so mixed, how can anyone (even the base he’s trying to rile) take it remotely seriously if they don’t know if it’s satire, humor, or a documentary?
June 29th, 2004 at 9:42 am
Farenheit 9/11: satire, humor, or documentary?
I don’t know, but I suspect it’s mainly B.S.
June 29th, 2004 at 9:52 am
Re. your link…
There is no assertion in the movie that any Saudis were shuttled out of the country before the FAA re-opened the airspace. He shows flight logs with the date 9/13. This “error” is an urban myth.
June 29th, 2004 at 10:18 am
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
June 29th, 2004 at 11:28 am
It’s not technically an error, just one of many intentionally misleading facts. He doesn’t exactly go out of his way to point out that the airspace had been reopened. Doing so – or even mentioning whose decision it was – would have defeated the whole point of showing that segment.
June 29th, 2004 at 12:04 pm
THat’s his MO, like in bowling when he didn’t say the NRA and the KKK were related but he sure tried like hell to imply it.
June 29th, 2004 at 12:10 pm
“intentionally misleading fact”.
Hahaha. Good one.
June 30th, 2004 at 8:50 am
Xrlq:
*Sigh* Now if only the Right would put those same critical analysis skills to work on Bush’s pre-Iraq-war speeches…
July 1st, 2004 at 3:22 pm
This is like what he did with Stupid White Men.
He stated that the book was factual over and over, but when people called him on specific things he’d asserted that simply weren’t true, his response was “how can there be inaccuracy in comedy?”