Anyone else think Farenheit 9/11 was too long and

[oustemnow]

too scattershot in its approach?

Just saw it today, and while much of it was really incredible filmmaking, I couldn't help feel that Moore tried to pack in too many points, to the detriment of the film's overall impact. (I also felt that this was the case with Bowling for Columbine.)

Any thoughts on this?

[LeighAnn]

1. Thought it was too easy on Bush

I just read someone complaining that there was no mention of the PNAC. You can only fit in so many facts!

There was a lot more I wish he would have driven home...
all in all I thought Bush got off too easy.

Loved the movie, though, as did everyone I've spoken to who's seen it.

[Syrinx]

4. I'm pretty sure PNAC was mentioned

But it wasn't dwelled upon.

edit: This would confirm the original poster's point: It did go into many areas, without not enough focus. So maybe it was too short?

[tavalon]

14. I don't

think it was too short or too long but having just seen it for the second time tonight, I think there were a few too many tangents that didn't support an overall cohesive theme but man, overall, it rocked.

[Syrinx]

15. yes or no

:shrug:

[AndyTiedye]

18. He Said Ashcroft Ignored the Terror Warnings. He Didn't Completely...

He said Asscroft ignored the terror warnings.
But he didn't ignore them completely.
He stopped flying commercial, and started flying chartered government jets instead:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main303601.shtml


(CBS) Fishing rod in hand, Attorney General John Ashcroft left on a weekend trip to Missouri Thursday afternoon aboard a chartered government jet, reports CBS News Correspondent Jim Stewart.

In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.

"There was a threat assessment and there are guidelines. He is acting under the guidelines," an FBI spokesman said. Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department, however, would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it.

A senior official at the CIA said he was unaware of specific threats against any Cabinet member, and Ashcroft himself, in a speech in California, seemed unsure of the nature of the threat.

YEAH, I'LL BET HE WAS! :grr::grr:

Yo Michael, if you read this, could you slip some mention of that into the DVD version?
No need to stick to 2 hours for the DVD.

[Syrinx]

2. it was, if I recall, 116 minutes

I don't think that's too long.

[oustemnow]

9. I thought it was longer than that

I went to a 4:30 showing, and didn't get back to the car until after 6:30. (Granted, I had to hunt a little for my car in the parking structure, but still....)

[Syrinx]

12. the walk out

I'm just doing this from memory but I think it was 116 minutes, four minutes short of 2 hours.

edit: fixed some confusing stuff

[leftistagitator]

3. Too long?

I thought it ended too soon. It covered a lot of topics, but I thought it held together well.

[wickerwoman]

5. I wanted to like it, but I don't think it was the best possible

presentation of the case.

I think my main problem was that he was going so far out of his way not to offend middle America that some of his point just didn't strike home.

The best moments revealed the Bushies for the undeniable bozos they are, but all of those moments were on national news and there are still people out there who can't see through them.

He needed to spend more time on how Bush lied to get us into Iraq. He didn't refute any of the Bush gang's "evidence" of WMD development. That's the real story. But it would be a gamble for Moore to really show how he lied us into the war (what if they find WMDs tomorrow?) so the whole argument fell a bit flat.

I really want to like what Michael Moore is doing and I think he has courage to burn, but there's a better movie out there to be made about this.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

16. Right. The film won the top award at Cannes, and has pulled in....

...$64 million so far, a record by far for a documentary film.

Here's the deal...he had to decide how much info to put into a film that ran less than two hours. How much longer would the film run by adding in what you call "the real story"?

I can guarantee you that 95% of Americans know absolutely nothing about the strong decades-long connections between the Saudi Royal Family, the Bin Laden family, and the Bush family. That by itself is raising quite a few doubts about that NeoCons.

[wickerwoman]

20. All that proves is how starved people are for the truth.

That doesn't mean there isn't a better movie to be made out there.

I'd be the first person to admit that the story is tangle. I just felt he spent too long on dead-ends, like letting the bin Ladens leave on Sep 13th. If he wants something like that to stick he would need a hell of a lot more proof that Osama isn't a black sheep than "he showed up at so-and-so's duaghter's wedding". Hell, I'm a black sheep and I went to my cousin's wedding and I can't stand her.

Why focus on letting the bin Laden's out when we have proof that Bush lied about the evidence that Saddam had WMDs? Isn't that his real point? Bush wanted Saddam and he wanted him bad. He ignored al Qaeda to ivade Iraq, he lied to get us there, and now we're stuck in a quagmire and kids on both sides are being blown to shit. That's the story.

I never said that the movie was too long (I think it's too short) but I think it's unfocused and I'm not 100% convinced of its power to convert those who most need to see it.

[KoKo]

27. The movie was "Bush Lite" for the Uninformed. Bush Lite is so frightening

that it makes an impression on those who really haven't looked beyond the CNN/MSRNC hype.

For those of us who know more, it might seem incomplete, but for those who knew almost nothing I wonder if it isn't almost more than they can handle.

I thought he did a great job for people with "short attention spans" who just think in "sound bytes." He asks questions which might leave people wanting to find out more.

I don't think he made the movie for us here on DU and elsewhere who wanted a true documentary which would track down all the lies and crookery, he just wanted to connect some dots for folks. Then let them put the rest together on their own.:shrug:

[LibertyorDeath]

6. No

I would have enjoyed more content

PNAC

The use of Torture as a Policy by these shit weasels

The tactics they use to get the Media to relay RNC talking points.

A short bio about the type of Evil Shit Rove is

& the Tactics he uses.

No I did not think it was scattered.

I think it was remarkable that he could tell this story in the amount of time he did.

IMO

[WI_DEM]

7. not me

I didn't think it was long enough. I was so engrossed in it and the case it was making that the time flew by.

[oasis]

8. Viewers in Cannes gave it a 20 min. standing ovation and an award.

[DemBones DemBones]

25. That's no proof that it couldn't have been a BETTER film,

only proof that those who attend Cannes detest Bush* and were pleased to see a film criticizing his administration.

[President Jesus]

10. I think he tried to cover too much as well.

then again, the film was made for a mass audience, not political junkies like ourselves.

[stickdog]

11. It seemed about 45 minutes long to me. (nt)

[the Kelly Gang]

13. lets face it..when would a film like this have ever been seen in the

cinema before.?
I haven't seen it yet but is this an absolute masterstroke being able to get a film dissing the Bush administration in everyday cinemas .

I worship Michael Moore right now :bounce: :bounce:

[oustemnow]

19. Oh, I agree with that completely

and I could see where, given that he pretty much has one shot at getting this out when it really counts, he'd want to make as many points as possible, but I think this might have worked to the detriment of the film, however slightly.

[Cat Atomic]

17. I think alot of DUer's were expecting an anti-Bush fest, but

what Moore delivered was infinitely more compelling and relevant.

It was a look at the really big picture, of how the powerless are used by the powerful. The Bush family is an good illustration of this fact, but I don't think Moore was just out to bash the Bush family- or even Republicans.

THAT'S why the mainstream press has almost universally attacked this film, by the way.

I think we've all noticed the establishment's rather anxious cutting of ties to the Bush administration as it begins to sink beneath the surface. Criticism of the Bush administration is open and widespread these days- even in the US press. It wasn't Moore's anti-Bush comments that drives the press crazy. It's his exposure of the coordinated way in which powerful people, from Bush's oil industry cronies, all the way down to the New York Times, manipulated the people of this country into an unjust invasion for their own enrichment.

[yellowdawgdem]

21. yes

I thought it was too long and scattershot. However, in spite of that, I got alot out of it, and want to see it a second time. I did get the sense that the film wasn't directed at internet dorks such as ourselves. It was more for the average person who watches lots of television. In fact it seemed to be the antidote for the nightly news. It consisted of lots of news clippings and chunks of footage that made it seem like a news broadcast.
I was very moved by the start of the film- election 2000 footage, and basically reminding us (again) how these people got into office. Then, showing the Black caucus trying to get a senator to back an investigation, and not getting anybody. And Al Gore trying to move everybody along, like let's not deal with this.
But by the end of the film, I did start to get tired and fidgety, and having to see the Iraq footage towards the end was tough. I was glad to see actual footage of the war, and I am all for Michael Moore. But I also wish for a film that tied up more of the loose ends, and went farther into content. Of course, it would also be
nice to have some pointers for how to go about having a massive revolution. And, sure, pigs can fly.

[leftofthedial]

22. If he could make it into a trilogy,

and this was just volume 1, perhaps it was too long.

As it is, I think it omits many important issues entirely. I really sympathize with the difficult task he faced in focusing the film and keeping it simple and unambiguous.

the bushgang gets away with many of its sins because the issues are so complex and the public so apathetic.

I thought Moore nailed it pretty well.

[bowens43]

23. No. Absolutely not.

It wasn't long enough. There is so much more that could and should have been said. I can't wait for the DVD release. It will most likely be loaded with extras.

[DemBones DemBones]

24. The editor of The Progressive agrees.

He found the film disappointing. Although he commends Moore for his courage and for the many good parts of the film, he writes,

"But he had a great movie on his hands, and he couldn't leave well enough alone.

Instead, he intruded, as is his trademark, too much into his own film. He used a sledgehammer approach when a dagger would have done the job, and he tarnished his whole enterprise with a tone that will be off-putting to all but the Moveon.org crowd.

Make no mistake: This was an in-crowd movie.

Moore has said he wants the movie to be a tool to defeat Bush. But if that's the intention, I'm afraid he's failed.

I tried to put myself in the shoes of friends of mine who are open-minded Republicans or middle-of-the-roaders. And I suspect that most of them will be turned off by Moore's cheap shots."

http://www.progressive.org/webex04/wx0626a04.html


I haven't seen "Fahrenheit 9/11" yet, being more than an hour's drive from any theater showing it, but this has been my fear since I first heard of the film. In my opinion, Michael Moore needs some controlling force in his life to rein him in when he's going too far and being obnoxious, someone who would have edited the film a bit differently. I know the film won at Cannes and is breaking boxoffice records for a documentary but that doesn't mean it couldn't have been a better film and, more importantly for our future, a better agent for change.

Moore is both an asset and a liability to the left. His persona is much involved with his work and many people don't like his persona and thus give less credence to his work.

[tinanator]

29. You havent seen it, but you pass on these piss poor judgements?

I guess everyones a critic but I thought only Republican supporters would bash it before seeing it. Whats the word? Temerity?
There were no cheap shots, somebody is stretching the truth for whatever reason, and failing to recognize the many limiting factors the guy had to juggle to work a fucking miracle.

[DemBones DemBones]

31. My quoting "The Progressive" offends you?

I don't understand why you equate my posting a critical portion of a review from "The Progressive" to bashing the film. The review is comprised of the opinions of the editor of "The Progressive," who DID see it and who thinks Moore overdid parts of the film. He also said positive things about it. I added my own comment about Moore being both an asset and a detriment to the left.

I'd say you are the one showing temerity. I suspect you didn't read the review but simply rushed to take a cheap shot at me. Have you perchance been taking charm lessons from Dick Cheney?

[KoKo]

30. Dem Bones, he really isn't int he film that much. Mostly his voice. I

hope you eventually get to see it. I thought "Bowling for Columbine" was OTT in many ways. This film is nothing like that movie.

I disagree with the Progressives view of it. It's a powerful film for those who just get their news from CNN.

[DemBones DemBones]

32. KoKo, it appears that Fahrenheit 9/11 is

now playing here, starting today. That's a testimony to its success, as I live in Bob Barr country! It will be interesting to see what kind of turn-out there is here. And even more interesting to see if the film has any effect on the election. How likely to see it are those who get their news from CNN? Or FOX?(!!!)

Did you read the entire review in "The Progressive"? I thought it was a balanced view, praising Moore's courage and the good parts of the film, criticizing what the writer saw as its weaknesses. He suggested that Moore should have ended with the woman learning of her son's death, that what followed that sequence was overkill or extranaeous in some way. He also thinks some of it was mean-spirited or played too much for laughs, and that even though leftists love those parts, others will find them bothersome and thus miss some of the really important information in other segments. Seems a valid concern to me, based on my previous knowledge of Moore's oeuvre.

[booley]

26. to paraphrase Hitchcock

the movie wasn't longer then my bladder's endurence so it was just the right length.

You can't have concentration and the need to pee at the same time occupying your brain.

Besides, those who watched it either already know the rest of the story or can get interested in finding out more. It was a movie, not an encyclopedia.

[Q]

28. Perhaps some...

...just have a very short attention span?

[DemBones DemBones]

33. Most Americans have short attention spans,

thanks to commercial television, movies that don't demand much of the viewer, and our compulsion to multitask. Can you imagine listening to speeches two and three hours long, as people did a hundred and fifty years ago?