What are the key criticisms of Fahrenheit 911?

[Darth Wong]

Could someone refresh my memory with an up-to-late list of the key criticisms leveled against this film? I finally watched it by renting it from Blockbuster, and I'm wondering what the major criticisms from the right were (apart from the oft-repeated and logically oh-so-convincing "he's a stupid fat-ass" argument).

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Could someone refresh my memory with an up-to-late list of the key criticisms leveled against this film? I finally watched it by renting it from Blockbuster, and I'm wondering what the major criticisms from the right were (apart from the oft-repeated and logically oh-so-convincing "he's a stupid fat-ass" argument).

Couldn't you just check the archive? I mean thats what it's there for, right?

[mauldooku]

IIRC it's very similar to the ones used against most of his other movies: selective editing, failing to respect journalism standards, what have you. Having not seen the movie yet (not really caring much about it, Michael Moore, or the hordes of people that hound him), I honestly don't know how valid the claims are.

[Joe]

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html

[Darth Wong]

Could someone refresh my memory with an up-to-late list of the key criticisms leveled against this film? I finally watched it by renting it from Blockbuster, and I'm wondering what the major criticisms from the right were (apart from the oft-repeated and logically oh-so-convincing "he's a stupid fat-ass" argument).

Couldn't you just check the archive? I mean thats what it's there for, right?

The DVD version is different from the theatrical version, or so I've heard. Therefore, old versions of the criticisms would not necessarily be accurate.

[jegs2]

Here are some sites that debunk the film:

1
2
3

Well, that's from a quick scan of Google, but there are many more out there.

[Marksist]

Jegs, the problem with those sites you posted (besides the fact that one of them is FreeRepublic.com) is that none of them cite any sources behind their statements against the movie. They just state things as fact. Do you have any sites that cite sources?

[Admiral Valdemar]

My university's cinema is showing this within the next fortnight so I'm going to catch it' Regardless of political credibility on this board, I intend to absorb what Moore has to say and form my own opinion. Of course, I'm not going to sway so easily over to the "he's un-American" or "he speaks only the truth" sides.

What are the differences with the DVD version anyway?

[Darth Wong]

Ah, I see. The criticisms mostly centre on his attempt to show a conspiracy of oil interests controlling George W. Bush's actions. If so, it's not unexpected but not particularly compelling in terms of my reaction to the film either, since that is easily the weakest part of the film. The connections he tries to make seem rather tenuous even when you're watching it for the first time, without the benefit of these various articles picking them apart in detail. That part of the film succeeds in making Bush look like an ineffective leader, but is not as effective at supporting its conspiracy theorist musings.

The film doesn't really pick up steam until Moore shuts up and lets ordinary people talk about how the war in Iraq has affected their lives.

[jegs2]

Jegs, the problem with those sites you posted (besides the fact that one of them is FreeRepublic.com) is that none of them cite any sources behind their statements against the movie. They just state things as fact. Do you have any sites that cite sources?

No, but it was only a cursery search for Mike. Didn't see the flick; don't plan to.

[Marksist]

What are the differences with the DVD version anyway?

I haven't seen the DVD yet, but Moore said he just added in 90 more minutes of bonus material. Things that have come up since the release of the movie, and release of the DVD.

[Galvatron]

Might as well provide a counterpoint to the other links...

Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11

[CJvR]

http://www.larryelder.com/911/debunking911.html

[Predator]

You know, what really annoys me about the oil business conspiracy argument regarding Farenheit 911 is that it's a bit like arguing about the length of Hitler's nostril hairs. The Bush family has big business ties to, and close personal friendships with the Saudi royal family, a family running a brutal authoritarian absolute monarchy in a nation suffers terribe human rights abuses as a result. Forget oil conspiracies - isnt this alone worthy of criticism?

[The Dude]

By far the most compelling article I've read on it was by Christopher Hitchens on Slate:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723

[Kamakazie Sith]

The only one that stood out to me while I was watching the film is when Moore attempted to make it seem like the Saudis were getting special embassy protection from the Secret Service.

It just so happens that embassy protection is one of the primary duties of the Secret Service, but Moore leaves that letting those who don't know that form a false conclusion.

Not really a big deal but a good example of how Moore omits certain things to paint his own picture...which I guess probably happens in a lot of documentarys and even in history books.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If I mod would be good to correct my poor spelling!

documentaries

[Bugsby]

Most of the criticism I have seen on F9/11 is about the Saudi stuff. OK, most of it is skewed. But just the fact that the Bushes are freinds with these people who are themselves totalitarian dictators is a pretty strong argument, even if there are no statistics to prove a deep collusion. But That's not the point of the movie. The point is the Iraq war and all the bullshit that is being used to justify it, along with all the bullshit that happened and is happening. I haven't seen too many criticisms saying "Michael Moore is lying because war isn't really that bad. The US soldiers are begin treated to cake and punch!" A lot of details have dubious basis and fact, and yes, the editing is slick, and Moore is a smarmy bastard. But some of the key points, not conveyed in his narrative but in the interviews with parents and the footage of combat, are unassailable.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Most of the criticism I have seen on F9/11 is about the Saudi stuff. OK, most of it is skewed. But just the fact that the Bushes are freinds with these people who are themselves totalitarian dictators is a pretty strong argument, even if there are no statistics to prove a deep collusion. But That's not the point of the movie. The point is the Iraq war and all the bullshit that is being used to justify it, along with all the bullshit that happened and is happening. I haven't seen too many criticisms saying "Michael Moore is lying because war isn't really that bad. The US soldiers are begin treated to cake and punch!" A lot of details have dubious basis and fact, and yes, the editing is slick, and Moore is a smarmy bastard. But some of the key points, not conveyed in his narrative but in the interviews with parents and the footage of combat, are unassailable.

Very true. However, Moore would go a long way to tell the whole story. His message would be a lot stronger. Whenever I watch one of his films because of his style I'm always skeptical because there's always that thought in my mind. What is he not telling me....