Fahrenheit did not have ANY dramatization. What I remember is actual cli

[patricia92243]

clips of various news footage, etc, Moore then did some interviews with REAL people - but NONE of it was made up, dramatized, or anything else unreal.

So do I remember wrongly or not ?

So, if the neo-cons are trying to compare a "documentradrama" - or whatever made word they use - to Moore's presentation - is comparing apples and oranges. It just ain't so.

[pat_k]

1. Which is why Clinton et al need to sue. . . make it REAL

. . .They can complain about the truth in Fahrenheit 911. Leaders on our side must do more. Make it real. Expose their lies.

If they bring a lawsuit, it draws a line.

If the truth from Michael Moore were somehow comparable, why didn't someone Moore exposed bring suit?

If they don't go beyond a War of Words, they allow the comparison between their fantasy and the reality from Michael Moore to stand.

[Avalux]

2. I remember Bush sitting in the classroom.

That was real, not a dramatization. I remember the mother who lost her son standing in front of the WH crying. That was real, not a dramatization.

Fuck them.

[wtmusic]

3. MM shuffled some scenes out of chronological order

to enhance others...in a sense "dramatizing" his point.

Nothing is made up and nothing is re-enacted, though. Whole different game.

[shadowknows69]

6. and the MSM doesn't use clever editing

to bring home a certain point.

[vincent_vega_lives]

10. Of Course

What is NOT said is often more important that what IS said.

[Imagevision]

4. One could have viewd F-9-11 with no audio and drawn realistic conclusions

[John Gauger]

5. Nope everything

in F9/11 was confirmed true by threee seperate fact-chekcing firms. As in he paid people to confirm all of his facts and they checked out.

[sandnsea]

7. The exact opposite, actually

It doesn't matter if a documentary has a point of view, ALL documentaries have a point of view. This mini-series is pretending it DOES NOT have a point of view but is an honest depiction of the 9/11 commission report. If it WERE a documentary or news report, people would turn on their bullshitometer. But because the 9/11 Commissioner consulted on the mini-series, they will gobble it up without even the teensiest bit of discernment at all.

I can tell you that one thing that wasn't exactly true in F 9/11. Yes, there are only 2 state troopers on Hwy 101 in my town on the Oregon Coast. BUT, there are 30+ city cops, the coast guard, and I don't know how many county cops. So while it's factually true, it in't an accurate representation of the security on this stretch of coast.

[cascadiance]

14. You can be a Michael Moore skeptic in watching F 9/11

... and disbelieve a lot of his commentary, etc. in that film. But you can hear what people say in this film and KNOW that they are real people and what they are saying is from the horse's mouth, even if it is selectively edited and get some sense of what is real, even if you don't trust him at all. With "Path to 9/11", it is all acted, and therefore one needs to be skeptical of ALL that is being given to you. There are no real people's comments who were a part of 9/11 that clarify that it is their point of view and not some "depiction of what happened" that Michael Moore never tried to do in F911.

Ask some of the right wing defenders of ABC's film you talk to on how they'd feel if ABC had instead aired "The Last Temptation of Christ" as a "docudrama" of what happened to Christ in the old days, and perhaps then they could understand how you just can't call these sorts of work as depictions of an "objective viewpoint of what heppened then".

[sandnsea]

15. But that's not how people watch TV

People expect documentaries to be slanted to a point of view, depending on who makes them and who funds them. People are sophisticated enough to know that.

But people have also come to trust the big 3 networks as NOT having a point of view or agenda. That's because we've been raised for years on the fairness doctrine and the networks couldn't present a political agenda without air time for opposing views. Most people have absolutely no idea that there was a law that required that, that that's why the networks were unbiased all those years, or that the law has been repealed causing the political shift in this country. It will simply not occur to at least 70% of the country to even question whether ABC would distort something as important as 9/11 for political purposes, at least not against Democrats because they also believe there could only be a liberal bias if there's one at all. That's how GOOD the right is at what they do.

[sgxnk]

8. lol

http://www.fahrenheit911.com/about/press/view.php?id=6


can you say "commentary track?"

i thought you could

can u say selective editing?

of course.

f-911 was a brilliant piece of filmwork, but it was an artist's and activist's interpretation

true to partisan form (i would expect no less in a political blog, but it gets old), that's ok when it's for "your side" but deceptive when it's not

it's called a double standard. you are soaking in it

[patricia92243]

9. Yes, I can say those things. And I can also say: Republican , and I can

also say: Party of Hate, and I can also say: It's hard to keep hidden, and last but not least, I can also say: Isn't it??

See - I can say lots of things. I just choose not to.

[Bridget Burke]

17. "Editing" is, by its very nature, "Selective"

Of course Fahrenheit 9/11 was a work of art. But it does not insist that any lies are true.

If you consider DU "your side"--where are you coming from? (Rhetorical question, of course.)

[City Lights]

11. You remembered it correctly, patricia92243.

And that's why all the comparisons between The Path to 9-11 and F9-11 infuriate me. One is truly a documentary and the other is a crockumentary. :mad:

[julialnyc]

12. FH 9/11 had a point of view, but I paid my $10 to go see it.

and while I do find Michael Moore accurate, I don't even know what would happen if FH9/11 just turned up on tv on 9/11 with no commercials. It would be one thing if this film was brought to theaters for someone to decide to pay their money to see (and I'm sure it's a piece of crap movie that wouldn't generate much interest), but to just have it on the tv for anyone to happen upon is disgusting.

[Chimichurri]

13. republicons always say it had a ton of inaccuracies but when

asked they cannot name one. Til this day I have not come across any factual errors in that movie from anyone. Not even the rabid reich wing noise machine.

[Plaid Adder]

16. "Fahrenheit 911" is a completely different kind of film from "Path to 911.

Here it is in a nutshell:

1. _Fahrenheit 911_ does not use paid actors pretending to be other people, nor does it fabricate "dramatic reenactments." All the footage in _Fahrenheit 911_ is documentary footage, shot of actual events with actual people in them while it was actually happening. _Path to 9/11_ may use some documentary footage, but the bulk of the film will be actors playing other people filmed on stage sets and delivering scripted lines.

2. Moore's voiceover and a number of other framing techniques make it clear to even the most dense viewer that _Fahrenheit 911_ reflects the viewpoint of the filmmaker and is not a "neutral" or "objective" treatment of "history." A three year old couldn't come out of _Fahrenheit 911_ without realizing that the film is made from a particular perspective. _Path to 9/11_ is presenting itself as an accurate representation of actual events. A three year old could probably be confused by it into believing that this is how it really happened.

3. The events represented in _Fahrenheit 911_ actually happened. Several of the events depicted in _The Path to 9/11_ have been fabricated.

Yes, both films have political viewpoints. That does not mean they're equivalent. It would make just as much sense to say that _Triumph of the Will_ is exactly like _Threepenny Opera_ because both are political pieces.

The Plaid Adder