"Fahrenheit 9/11" to Open June 25th in 1,000 Theaters

Welcome to A2K, AmericanEagle -- I hope you perch here for awhile and help enjoy the debate.

Thanks. Do you prefer Light? Wizard? LW? Or LightWizard? LOL.

So far, I love the place. I think I'll be here awhile.

I've been called many things. Lightgizzard is one of the more endearing play on words. I've even been dubbed "Oh, most powerful wizard" too.
I hope they were kidding. Mostly you'd find me addressed as LW.

I've been around since the beginning of the site and the handle has to do with my profession which has included working in films.

That's cool. I'd ask what films, but I don't want to take the thread too far off topic. LOL. So, if you wouldn't mind PMing me that would be cool.

And I use this handle on just about every board I post on, so mos people call me either Eagle or just AE. Pick your favorite.

Premiere Magazine's review of
"Fahrenheit 9/11", EXCERPTS

By Mark Salisbury

"Less a documentary than a one man crusade against the current incumbent of the White House, Moore's blistering film makes a persuasive case as it takes aim at the Bush administration and goes for jugular. Moore takes as his starting point George W's controversial victory of the 2000 presidential election, following through to the September 11th attacks in New York and Washington. He picks apart the Bush's family ties with the Saudis, and in particular asks how 24 members of the Bin Laden family were allowed to leave the U.S. with White House approval in the days following 9/11, as well as delving into a subsequent fictional war on terrorthe Bush-led witch hunt for Sadaam—rather than going after Al-Qaeda—and right up to the current conflict up to Iraq and the realization that maybe America had gotten itself involved in another Vietnam."

"Often accused of being a sensationalist, going for the heart rather than the head, Moore actually exhibits a remarkable degree of restraint here in regards to 9/11. Rather than show the horror of the attacks on the Twin Towers, the screen simply goes black as he relies on the sounds rather than the visuals to convey the horror of that day"

"Moore also includes some very disturbing footage of dead Iraqi children in Baghdad—footage never shown on US TV. Plus there are interviews with fresh-faced US troops who play loud rock music through their headphones and take pot-shots at the enemy like they were playing videogames."

"Even though there’s not much new ground covered here (a lot of the same material was picked over in Moore’s recent best-seller), and despite the fact the film is arguably around 15-20 minutes too long, this is, nevertheless, an explosive and heart wrenching piece of cinema that should provide ample ammunition for those who are fast becoming disillusioned by the increasing body count of American soldiers in Iraq."

For complete review, go to:
http://www.premiere.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=1565

I'm not going to disagree with that review. It's classification as documentary (going for, as well, his past films) includes shaping some of the documents according to his viewpoint. If that isn't a viewer's viewpoint they will balk but I can't see writing the whole thing off, not recognizing that he is an accomplished filmmaker. "Roger and Me" is still one of the best documentaries of the past 50 years, for instance.

Since a few days have past and because of Craven's concern, I did shamelessly bait with the words "Wackos," "redneck" and "not many understand satire on A2K." Of course, I don't believe that. I'm sure there aren't any rednecks or Wackos on A2K, and there's at least ten or more who understand satire.

According to whom? Just asking, cause I've seen some beautiful, shocking, deeply moving, enlightning documentaries (even worked at a documentary film festival once) and to see anyone state that "Roger and Me is one of the best documentaries of the past 50 years" like its some established fact just seems a little ... bold.

Well, since we don't have an abundance of theatrical documentaries in the archives, I think Moore's "Roger and Me" is a seminal film. It broke the mold when it appeared on the scene in 1989.

Theatrical style documentaries are scarce. The passionate and clever Charlie Chaplin worked hard to deliver his messages in a somewhat subtle but comedic style. I can recommend "Modern Times" as a good example.

Moore's style falls between a conventional documentary such as the series "Victory at Sea" and Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ".

The common thread is passion.

What are these documentaries? "Hoop Dreams" is one of my favorites. I think if you polled the film critics, you'd find "Roger and Me," and "Bowling for Columbine" on their top ten.

Charlie Chaplin is, it would seem to me, an inspiration for Moore's humor as he does play the part. Of course, Chaplin was rich, too.

"Victory at Sea" could be classified as a documentary as it was released theatrically in a two hour version. It has a wonderful Richard Rodgers score which was composed for the series so I suppose not using music authentic to the period makes that not a documentary. Listen to the narrative of "Victory" as it is tailored to almost make it seem that the U.S. was the only force fighting World War II. Every documentary has a viewpoint. Ken Burn's "Jazz" which I pointed out before is loaded with opinion (as a matter of fact, if I heard Wynton Marsalis "be-bopping" along instead of playing more music, I was going to shut it off). And it is still a documentary

Whether you put any credence in film critics or not, here is Rotten Tomatoes collection of reviews for "Roger and Me." Likely the only film on the entire site with a 100% rating.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/RogerMe-1017795/reviews.php?rtp=1

"Hoop Dreams" gets a whopping 96%

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/HoopDreams-1056986/

BTW, this film was constructed in a novelistic form and many of the scenes were "staged." It is still a documentary. I think anyone who investigated the making of nearly every documentary will find manipulations in the production of the film. If it's a series of news clips as I understand "Fahrenheit" uses more frequently, there is no rule that a running commentary on what is transpiring is not against anyone's rules but those who would like to be in control of the filmmaker.

On the topic of great documentaries, as one of the sidepanels of its programming the International Documentary Filmfestival IDFA every year invites a filmmaker to present his/her ten favourite documentaries. I wanted to look some of 'em up, but its not so easy to find 'em back!

Here's the one from 2001, by Kim Longinotto (and yes, its got Roger and Me ;-)):



I saw the Zhirinovsky one on TV - it was brilliant!

Here's the one from Jan Vrijman (famous Dutch director) from '96 (there's 11 in this top 10 ...):



I remember Story of the Wind was beautiful and Amsterdam, Global Village was very, very nice, but its Belovy that perhaps made one of the deepest impressions on me any doc did - and I only saw it on TV!

I also liked Kossakovsky's "Wednesday" (tho I dont remember much about it), and "Pavel and Lyalya" (very moving), but Belovy was unlike much anything I'd seen.

Other compilers of the Top 10 included Krzysztof Kieslowski (1989), Paolo & Vittorio Taviani (1990), Agnès Varda (1991), Robert Kramer (1992), Dennis O'Rourke (1993), Johan van der Keuken (1994), Barbara Kopple (1995), D.A. Pennebaker & Chris Hegedus (1997), Kazuo Hara (1998), Werner Herzog (1999), Michael Apted (2000), Walter Salles and João Moreira Salles (2002) - but - cant find theirs back online so quickly.

If Michael Moore's "F911" makes a sizeable amount of money at the box office, it could possibly change the way Hollywood does business.

The powers to be in the film business have never taken documentary films seriously and it's always a problem to get them distributed in the USA for general viewing. Since we know what "F911" cost to produce, it will be interesting to see what it pulls in at the box office.

If it makes a sizeable profit, it will be a good day for documentarians. Only the Academy of Arts & Sciences has given these films the full attention they deserve.

Last year when the Academy handed the Oscar to "Fog of War" for best documentary feature that was the same level of honor they awarded to best picture. At least the Academy has been getting it right. (They also award an Oscar to best documentary short subject each year.)

Documentaries have been taking a back seat, we'll more like in the trunk, in filmmaking and I think Moore is largely responsible for putting an emphasis on the medium. "Fog of War" is a great documentary and deserved its Oscar. It also has a strong viewpoint and is loaded with opinion.

My contention is that the purist interpretation of what a documentary film is doesn't compute. Freedom of expression is what counts and the fact that "Triumph of the Will" appears on one of those lists quoted by nimh is curious considering that's the film most of the dissenters want to compare Moore's efforts to. Is there propaganda in Moore's documentaries? I think it's safe to say there is and in several places in his films I'm a bit taken aback by his chutzpah in stretch out the envelope.

As far as propaganda being ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause being in a documentary, who's to say it can't be in a documentary? (Thanks to Merriam-Webster )

I'm surprised "Hotel Terminus" doesn't show up but it's likely to show up on some critic's list. A little heavy going for some like "The Sorrow and the Pity?"

I'm surprised by "Touching the Void" there at number 14. That was the last movie I saw, its playing here now. I mean, it was an OK movie, but ...

The story itself (mountainclimber incredibly survives horrendous fate after his mate leaves him for dead in an ice cravice at several thousand meter) is spectacular, and thats probably what got it so high - and for a mountainclimbing movie its quite different from the standard mould, which is good - but its still basically a mountainclimbing movie, nothing very inventive or shockingly insightful. I wouldnt even put it in the top 10 movies I saw this year, myself. Huh, strange, isnt it, always, these lists!

The user rating is, of course, more likely to be a popularity contest and I'm actually surprised that some more serious films made it onto the list. It is a target audience kind of poll as those who vote would focus on films they have seen while I would hope that critics see all the films.

I wish Sight and Sound would poll critics for the top ten documentaries. There are some more lists on the internet but it looks to me like you've had the experience to some of the more expert polls.

Does anyone know if there is a list of the 1000 theaters posted anywhere that will be showing Fahrenheit 9/11 on June 25? I'd love to see it, but don't know how to find out if it will be showing in my town.

http://www.f911tix.com/