A 21st Century Book Burning

[Midwest_Doc]

The hysteria of the radical right over the success of F911 is heartwarming to my progressive soul. Their efforts to keep the people from seeing this documentary has taken on the flavor of a book-burning. Boycotts, threats, intimidation and use of government regulatory agencies and the courts reminds me of all the events that used to precede a good old fashioned book burning.

Thank you Michael Moore!

[Newkophile]

1. Maybe that's why Moore appropriated Bradbury's title

Moore may in fact have foreseen that like the book destruction that takes place in Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451", there would be fascistic attempts to destroy his work, i.e., by denying access. Why Bradbury is upset at Moore is beyond me.

[bryant69]

2. I can sort of see it

I mean it's his name. The argument that "Well, he'll sell more books, so he should shut up" doesn't have much weight with me. He has a right to control his legacy. And if he really did talk to Moore before slamming into him through the press, well, than I'm not that sympathetic to Moore.

But then again, I haven't heard Moores side. Has Moore talked about this conflict or just left it alone?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Atman]

5. Using parody in the name is perfectly appropriate

and an honor to Ray Bradbury...the term is forever emblazoned in our lexicography, and Moore only enhances the enshrinement.

Not only that, it always works for porno...who can forget The Porn Birds or Shaving Ryan's Privates?? Moore is just a good marketer!

[doni_georgia]

7. He said he called Bradbury and never reached him, and just went ahead

with the title. Honestly, it's not like he called the movie Fahrenheit 451. Taking one word from a title is not the same thing as taking the whole thing. I personally think Bradbury should get over it.

[bryant69]

9. Yeah but

Clearly Michael Moore was trying to link the ideas in his movie with the ideas in Bradbury's Book. 911, the temperature at which freedom burns? That's pretty direct.

I think it'd be nice of him to get over it as well; but I can understand his point of view.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ronabop]

13. The Fahrenheit kefluffle.

Yes. Michael Moore, when he wants information, makes a single phone call. If he doesn't get an answer, he simply gives up. That's his whole style, right? It's not like he grabs a camera and actively stalks the person he wants to contact, he just gives up quickly....

:-)

Seriously, my guess is preserving the brand for the following:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360556/

Moore's film title has the potential of damaging the brand awareness of a movie currently in production, That makes a heck of a lot more sense than "I tried a phone call, and gave up when I didn't get an answer". Especially when it's a person like Moore.

-Boppers

[bowens43]

3. The more they wail.....

the better the movie will do.

[moosedog]

8. Bradbury & Moore

I think that they enhance each other. Moore has shown just how astute Bradbury was when he wrote about our future if we don't stop the thieves from robbing us.

[NewEmanuelGoldstein]

10. ----

Who cares how well the movie does if no one gets the message it gives.

One side bashes it to ignore it, and the other cites how much money it makes to prove that the side that bashes it is stupid. The point(s) the movie makes are missed and ignored by both sides.

Moore isn't going to fight your battles for you. He gave people help to fight and they use it by saying how much money it made.

[bowens43]

11. I think you have a very narrow view of the effect of this movie.

It will mobilize the base. People I know who are Democrats but uninvolved are now becoming actively involved. Several independents I know are now leaning heavily toward voting for Kerry.
There is nothing wrong with touting the financial success of this movie. It is a metric that is well understood and valued by the opposition.

[Baltimoreboy]

4. Some yes, some no

Boycotts are a perfectly legitimate form of protest.

The other stuff is not.

[bryant69]

6. Boycotts to shut down free speech

Are not legitimate.

Boycotts to force a company to adopt fair trading practices or to treat their workers better are legitimate, but if the boycott's purpose is to silence a view one doesn't agree with than I'd say that boycott was wrong-headed.

And to forstall the obvious question, boycotts to silence Rush Limbaugh are just as wrong (and just as inneffective) as the attempts by PABAAH and Move America Forward to silence Michael Moore.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[IrateCitizen]

12. A question for you re: boycotts

And to forstall the obvious question, boycotts to silence Rush Limbaugh are just as wrong (and just as inneffective) as the attempts by PABAAH and Move America Forward to silence Michael Moore.

Do you only believe this in regards to US commercial stations, or does this belief also extend to the featuring of Limbaugh on AFRN and the drive to have him removed?

Just curious....

[bryant69]

14. Mostly US Commercial Stations

The Armed Forces Radio Network situation is a bit less clear cut. I think the best solution is for them to put an hour of Franken (or anyone else from Air America) on to offset Limbaugh. That way both views are heard. Drives me nuts to hear Limbaugh and other dopes claiming that he is off set by NPR when it's clear he's offering an extremely biased view and NPR is imperfectly trying to present the news in an unbiased way (although they do have an administration bias).

If however, the Armed Forces is unwilling to give any time to a liberal, than they should probably take him off.