Michael Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" was a look at former president Bush's supposed failures at responding to 9/11, invading Iraq and Afghanistan, and increasing homeland security. The film, in my opinion, was a pretty even mixture of harsh truth, and unfair insinuation; with some played up drama too. A lot of fact was there, but it was the music, editing, and attacking tone of the movie that made me feel like it was propaganda. Moore's points I think have a lot of research behind them, as evidenced on his website, but in the movie he makes a lot of assumptions. For example, ultimately saying the Bin Ladens and the Saudis control America through Bush and their investments in him is too far a leap to make and be vague about it. I think I would have liked the movie a lot more if everything wasn't so anti-Bush and more fact was presented. But I do see that without the overly paranoid nature it would not be as entertaining a movie; and however unfair the points he made may be, it gets people to question authority and think for themselves; I just wish it wasn't all a conspiracy theory.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree with Claire. I would have liked the movie much more had it been made to show the truth in its full. Though the movie did have true facts and figures in it, I feel, like Claire, that the way it was presented was misleading at times. It upset me also that he would purposely show facts in a skewed way. I found it hypocritical. In the documentary he is discussing how Bush manipulated the American people during this event, that he was misinforming them as well. This is exactly what Moore does in the documentary. He portrays information to mislead and misinform. He does this to make Bush seem all bad. Overall, I agree with Claire. Moore could have portrayed his information in a more factual way.
I think that Moore’s Fahrenheit 9-11, was an equal mix of harsh truth, and unfair insinuation. He did take some hits at Bush, his family, and his staff. Some may have seemed exaggerated, or unfair towards the man himself, but I don’t think that is what made this movie so well-known. The harsh truth that is bluntly shown in the movie I think is what shocked audiences the most. Moore was not afraid to tell us the truth. Without a popular documentary out about the attacks, Americas may never have had a way to know what really happened and why. It showed flaws in the Bush administration, and the lies that our politician told. If the truth is harsh, I don’t really believe that anything Moore stated was unfair.
The documentary was very straight forward, i mean he told it all. which i think was good but I agree with paige it is a mix of harsh truth. Im sure he had more things to say about bush. Im shocked that they even let the movie be made, or that it wasnt pulled from the market.
Post a Comment