Reply
Wed 23 Jun, 2004 11:13 am
Let me preface this by saying I don't plan to vote for Bush in November. And although I haven't seen it yet, I will assume that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a great movie.
BUT...should we be concerned about F911 setting a precedent for the future? F911 may contain only factual material, but it is (I believe by Michael Moore's own admission) an attempt to influence the election against Bush.
THIS time the movie is against the Republican candidate, but next time a politically-charged movie could be against a Democratic candidate.
The movie falls outside 'equal time' rules that apply to TV and radio, nor is its budget under review as campaign or special interest group spending.
Is this strictly a free-speech issue, or do we need to regulate politically-charged motion pictures, at least during an election year, to allow equal exposure by all candidates?
From what I know election outcomes in the States are always a matter of money and good looks.
So why would you wanna start regulating things now? I mean it did work for you guys quite some time now. Why start here and let all the other blinky-blinky stuff go through?
There are no documentary filmmakers on the right who could produce such a movie. This is all material that has been available before, it's just bringing it all together in one place. Editorial comment is not verboten in a documentary -- Ken Burn's "Jazz" contains a multitude of opinons on the factual material.
Equal time doesn't apply to movies or books. It doesn't even apply to slanted news operations. Take FOX News, please...
Calling this film a documentary is to use the term in the most loose manner imaginable.
I've never seen a bias-free documentary.
Everybody's got an angle. Even Jacques Cousteau.
Every documentary ever made has a viewpoint otherwise they'd be as dull as watching snow melt.
The best Discovery documentaries contain a lot of opinion and other editorial content.
This is no documentary, this is simply Moore regurgitating what that fat stomach can't digest.
Brand X wrote: "Calling this film a documentary is to use the term in the most loose manner imaginable. "
Calling FOX News news is to use the term in the most loose manner imaginable.
I see it doesn't take long for those who have no argument to attack someone's physical appearance. Since most Americans are overweight, I'd guess that this is true of the poster.
I think it was 60 minutes or one of those other type shows that has already shown Bush @ that school. SO I'm not sure I get the big deal - nobody listened to 60 minutes and MM makes all the difference in the world??
Nobody has shown the full seven minutes -- only the signt and sound bite. It's the span of the seven minutes and the expressionless Bush that is eerie.
Variety reports the film is expected to break all past box office records for a documentary.
What documentaries is it going up against to reach that lofty goal?
My guess is, all documentaries that were box office hits!
I suspect lightwizard knows where to find the numbers right off, but ... here's what i found with a quick google
Box Office History for Documentary Movies
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace
