Comments on: Jarvis Dissects Fahrenheit 9/11

By: zappy

zappy — Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:17:44 +0000

Moore’s movie was so ridiculous that I could not even sit through it. This “documentary” was full of opinions unsupported by anything but speculation and some scenes that were twisted and out of context. The only people that can take this movie seriously are those who have been living in a bubble for the past couple of years and know nothing about what we have been through. This movie was one of Moore’s fantasies.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 09 Jul 2004 13:39:25 +0000

Well, if Michael Moore makes any money off “Fahrenheit 9/11,” at least maybe he can use it to buy some soap.

By: Bryon Gill

Bryon Gill — Sun, 27 Jun 2004 04:27:39 +0000

I’ve replied to Jarvis’ review at length here:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/bryguypgh/71895.html#cutid1

By: Alex Beverage

Alex Beverage — Sat, 26 Jun 2004 02:23:20 +0000

“I repeat: would you have to see a Hitler propaganda film in order to know it was not true?”

Godwin’s law invoked. Argument lost. Next.

By: Another Thought

Another Thought — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:37:34 +0000

Mark: First, many of my posts are simply criticism of Moore quotes, most of them not in any of his movies, but just quotes either from his books or from personal appearances.

Second, I still maintain that there is nothing intellectually light about passing along criticisms of the movie regarding its factual basis or lack thereof.

I am not passing judgement on the movie from any subjective or artistic argument: for that I would need to see the movie.

But when it comes to the facts…well, those are the same regardless whether I’ve seen the movie or not. What Jay and I have done is relay factual rebuttals to what is portrayed as the facts in the movie. We don’t claim to make these criticisms ourselves, but simply pass along the observations of others. I don’t see anything wrong with that. The only possible problem is if what is stated to be in the movie is not in it; but as the reports all agree as to the content of the movie, and as this content matches well with what Moore has written in his last book, I don’t think that is an issue.

And I do think there is a quantum world of difference between passing judgements on facts portrayed in a film one has not seen and passing judgements on military actions half a world away. The latter is far more complex and hard to judge. In fact, I would argue that critics of the Iraq war are going on less hard facts than critics of this Moore movie who have not seen it.

By: that other guy's thoughts

that other guy's thoughts — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:14:35 +0000

Crapumentary
In dishonor of Michael Moore�s continued assault on the documentary, I present you with a crap load of quotes about his new film, Fahrenheit 9/11. Jeff Jarvis “I don’t buy Moore’s Bush. To say that he’s the dark force of…

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:14:27 +0000

Another Thought, that’s a fair point to an extent. I am not criticizing you and Jay for merely criticizing the movie. I’m criticizing you for pretending to offer a serious critical analysis of a film you haven’t seen and have no intention to see. For you to provide 10 or 15 posts of F911-bashing based on your pre-determined perception of the movie is intellectually bankrupt and a waste of everybody’s time, especially your own. For that same reason, I try to limit my criticism of the situation in Iraq to my personal feelings of why this war was an ill-advised distraction. I don’t serve up daily doses of news briefs to inform anyone who will listen an erroneous heads-up on the situation over there because I don’t know the details. Those who critique battle plans from their armchairs across the ocean are as big of fools as those critique films they haven’t seen.

By: Another Thought

Another Thought — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 19:57:19 +0000

Mark: by your own standards, then, you should not comment on what is happening in Iraq until you go there and see it for yourself; after all, any other opinion is just hearsay.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:45:35 +0000

Another, I haven’t seen the film, so I don’t feel inclined to defend it or rebuke it. I always thought that was common sense but I suppose nothing is quite reliable anymore when debating conservatives circa 2004.

By: Another Thought

Another Thought — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:29:53 +0000

Mark: I will continue to criticize the Moore propaganda, based on many well thought out and researched arguments against the film…this isn’t a court of law and so the hearsay accusation is rather funny…

According to you, then, one should never pass along opinions that one has not derived oneself…so I guess on every single issue one has to do original research…which, of course, is unrealistic…

I don’t expect you to take my comments seriously…and I don’t care. Funny that you can’t refute any of the arguments against the film or against Moore…

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:13:21 +0000

Another Thought, just from friendly advice. If you merely said you don’t believe in Michael Moore’s views and don’t want to see his films, you wouldn’t look like as big of a raving idiot as you do when you proceed to analyze in detail movies you haven’t seen. Your one-dimensional thousand-word critiques of films you haven’t seen makes you look as if you have the mentality of an 10-year-old. While stupidity is more abundant than ever before in conservative circles, at least Bill O’Reilly can criticize the movie based on more than hearsay. Anyone who criticizes the movie (or any movie) simply based on hearsay isn’t worth talking to or listening to….except to tell them repeatedly how big of imbeciles they’re making themselves look like.

By: Another Thought

Another Thought — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:57:48 +0000

Mark: Give me a break…you can’t defend Moore or his outrageous comments or his film, so all you do is claim that I have to see the film in order to legitimately criticize it.

I repeat: would you have to see a Hitler propaganda film in order to know it was not true?

There are many well documented accounts of factual criticism of Moore’s movie, many of which have been linked to from this blog. If you wish, I can furnish you a detailed list.

Again, this is criticism of the factual basis for Moore’s film. Such an analysis does not require seeing the film; it requires knowing what is in the film and then doing the necessary research. Unless you dispute what people have said is in the film, then you have no argument.

I will not give this anti-American Moore one cent of my money to see his film.

So you can keep on repeating your point that I have not seen the film, or you can defend the film. Apparently, you cannot defend the film.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:36:34 +0000

Another, we’ve already established that you haven’t seen F-911 despite your detailed opinion of the film’s merits. Have you seen any of Moore’s films? Or is your thesis on “people like Moore who literally created propaganda” based entirely on hearsay?

By: Another Thought

Another Thought — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:28:38 +0000

I see that the moveon.org lies penetrate deeply into the minds of people like Sauron: now they take everything that Bush might say and attribute it falsely to Hitler…spreading the false Bush equals Hitler meme…

Ironically, it is people like Moore who literally create propaganda that Hitler would be proud of…

By: Another Thought

Another Thought — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:26:53 +0000

Sauron writes: “You know Hitler said you are either with us or against us. He also favored pre-emptive war.”

Among Sauron’s other mistatements, this is one more inaccuracy.

Hitler, while certainly an evil and vile man, never said either of those things…

In fact, the “with us or against us” philosophy dates at least back to Jesus…

And as for preemptive war, Hitler believed more in war to take over the world. In fact, it was people like Churchill who argued for preemptive action against Hitler…and has been proven by history to be correct.

By: Jay Reding

Jay Reding — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:56:36 +0000

sauron: This is last warning for trolling. Keep your comments respectful and on the topic or I will be forced to ban you again.

By: Chet

Chet — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 12:21:08 +0000

There could be nothing better to show how shamelessly partisan and completely out of touch with the realities of this war the Democrats are.

Says the guy who’s sure we’ll win the War on Terror by marching into Berlin.

By: Nicholas MacDonald

Nicholas MacDonald — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 04:32:10 +0000

Another Thought posted: ” Here is Moore sounding like Karl Marx and Marx�s remark about religion being the �opiate of the people�:

�There�s a gullible side to the American people. They can be easily misled. Religion is the best device used to mislead them.� ”

I certainly won’t defend Moore’s lies (or Marx’s for that matter), but he’s right on the money there, I’m afraid…

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 03:45:42 +0000

Another, of course you can critique movies you haven’t seen before. In fact I encourage it. You just make an even bigger ass of yourself. Given your uncanny powers to evaluate movies that have not yet been distributed to the public, what can you tell me about “Spider Man 2″? Is “Rocky 6″ worth seeing or should I wait for the video? Will Christopher Reeve reprise his role as the Man of Steel in “Superman 5″ after Bush approves the stem cell research necessary to help him walk again?

From now on, I’m gonna lean on you for every question I have about movies? Or are your powers of prediction not merely limited to films you haven’t seen?

By: Another Thought

Another Thought — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 03:36:40 +0000

Mark: I will critique whatever movie I please, regardless of what you think…

Also, I am commenting on the veracity of the movie’s claims, which do not require watching the movie…I am not commenting on subjective issues like style and such, which would…

The movie is full of lies and everyone knows it…I don’t have to watch it…just like I don’t have to watch Hitler’s propaganda films to know they are full of lies…