Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The film 11/9 Fahrenheit

Options
  • 27-09-2019 7:28pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭


    Firstly if you haven’t seen it, I really think you should. It’s brilliantly terrifying.

    But for those who have, what did you make of it?

    Do you think American political leaders really are straying to the far right.

    Would trump being impeached or voted out solve the problem?

    What’s your honest opinion.


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    I am a very liberal person, as many people know here.

    However, I trust Michael Moore about as much as a chocolate kettle being used as a submarine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    I am a very liberal person, as many people know here.

    However, I trust Michael Moore about as much as a chocolate kettle being used as a submarine.

    What has lead you to believe you can’t trust him?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭Stacksofwacks


    I havent seen as i havent been able to bring myself to watch it but Fahrenheit 9/11 is a great watch in hindsight


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster


    I havent seen as i havent been able to bring myself to watch it but Fahrenheit 9/11 is a great watch in hindsight

    It’s very well done


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,304 ✭✭✭liamtech


    I found Fahrenheit 11/9 to be a great disappointment if im honest.

    I rate all of Michael Moore's films as being incredibly good, and thought provoking so i expected a lot - For me Sicko was probably his best (highly recommend it) - Bowling, F9/11 and Capitalism a love story were also FANTASTIC - and Where to invade next, was also superb - so i expected the usual high standard from this one

    VERY poor in my mind

    "Filmmaker Michael Moore examines the current state of American politics, particularly the Donald Trump presidency and gun violence, while highlighting the power of grassroots democratic movements" - thats the IMDB description

    "Fahrenheit 11/9 is a 2018 American political documentary by filmmaker Michael Moore about the 2016 United States presidential election and presidency of Donald Trump." - from Wikipedia

    What did we get?

    Trump: Glossed over at best - 'Russia Did it; (spends the rest of the film avoiding this topic, and this from the man who began F9/11 with that sickening and tear jerking Gore/Bush Florida Episode, as an opening salvo -

    Didnt address the question of why people would vote for Trump - didnt properly speak to voters, or address the horrifically poor Clinton Campaign and her 'Basket of Deplorables' statement- accusations of Trump being a misogynist, and highlighting his odd attitude to his daughter, is old and too obvious at this stage - if he had followed the same pattern in bowling for columbine, said film would have been a back and forth of 'NRA are terrible' and 2nd Amendment supporters are mad - its a few weeks since i watched but there is a segment when he is speaking to a grass roots supporter with some serious views on American politics - i kept screaming at the TV - ASK HIM WHO HE VOTED FOR AND WHY :mad::mad::mad:- nope - just chatted -

    Flint Water Crisis - yea covered that very well, especially the ineptitude of Obama's response- beautifully done for a film about the flint water crisis, which of course this wasnt supposed to be?

    Generally comparing Trump to Hitler, its just way over the top - yes there are some parallels, but the strong segment in the film was, in my view, OTT -

    What i expected of this film was:
    • A frank discussion on how trump won - russia collusion, and appealling to the darker segments of American society, including far right and white supremacists (Which John Oliver covered beautifully btw)
    • A proper discussion on WHY he won - why so many Americans voted for him - ridiculous attitude of Clinton and the Democrats - and their arrogance in thinking 'sure clinton will do, if this is who she is against' - sidelining Bernie was covered briefly but THIS deserved more - a discussion of populism maybe, and why 'Building a wall' gained such support, to the shock of the rest of the world
    • Interviews with Trump Voters and a proper analysis of 'how the US got here, and how they get back'


    What we got was an inconsistent, meandering train wreck - a collage of unoriginal anti trump news segments - and an endorsement for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and just how amazing she is

    NOTE - i will try and pin down the section where i was screaming at the TV about him not asking who the guy voted for - anyway, i would be very interested to see what others have to say, i expect im possibly in a minority on this, but will enjoy a chat

    Sic semper tyrannis - thus always to Tyrants



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭FrostyJack


    Midster wrote:
    What has lead you to believe you can’t trust him?


    Having seen Moore being interviewed several times and some of his social media over the years I think he is a very bright person and his heart is in the right place, but his "documentaries" leave a lot to be desired. Though I did enjoy the 11/9 I had to take everything with a grain of salt. He uses all the tropes the right and conspiracy theorists use in their movies like Loose Change. For example where he gets a gun by opening a bank account and attacks Charlton Heston. It is all theater and no substance. Any reasonable right wing or gun advocate person could put a rebuttal to his pieces. There is rarely explanation from the otherside basically making it a propaganda piece. I would like for his stuff to be true but I would be hypocritical to hold the movies as anything but questionable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster


    But what he covered were the facts, true there could have been more facts put in there but to cover everything completely the film would have needed to be in 2 parts. There must have been tons of film that was cut in order to get the run time it had in the end.

    It covered

    Reasons for him going for presidency

    His general attitude towards women

    His questionable relationship with his daughter

    His determination to build the wall

    To block immigration of Muslims

    His anti immigration views overall

    How America and the world have viewed his racist and or sexist comments so far

    A comparison to hitler, although I admit OTT was in my mind still fare to do so

    The rise of a once dying KKK and far right movement since he came into power

    And tons and tons more stuff. Like I say if they were to stay on these individual subjects and look at them intensely, there would have needed to be a part 2

    And anyway, if there had have been a part 2, just as long as part 1, there would have been people out there saying it was to long.

    I believe the program to be pointing out fare points and making a not to undeserving comparison to someone who else, who shaped and created a far right country in the past.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,304 ✭✭✭liamtech


    Reasons for him going for presidency

    The docu series on the Trump Dynasty covered his reasons in about 40 minutes - this glossed wildly over them - and as for his victory
    with respect it didnt - it mentioned Russian involvement - and mentioned Bernie getting shafted by the DNC - that was it on reasons
    His general attitude towards women

    Covered a lot already - I expected Moore to examine the reasons why this did not seem to matter to the Ladies who voted for him - he barely covered this
    His questionable relationship with his daughter

    See above
    His determination to build the wall

    Examine why was this note merely tolerated, but it was ACTUALLY instrumental in bringing voters to his side - talk to these voters -
    To block immigration of Muslims

    See above again - im sorry i am not being condescending but he didnt properly examine this
    His anti immigration views overall

    How America and the world have viewed his racist and or sexist comments so far

    Again - why was this not only tolerated but became a battle cry
    Like I say if they were to stay on these individual subjects and look at them intensely, there would have needed to be a part 2

    With all due respect to the length, i do not believe this holds water - have you watched John Oliver take down, prior to the election? Granted it didnt stop him being elected - but it highlighted a MASSIVE amount of problems with trump - If Moore had actually examined these - and more importantly, why they actually encouraged people, as opposed to turning said voters way from Trump - this would have been an epic - And John Oliver Segment is 20 minutes long


    I love Moores other documentaries they are fantastic in my mind - i studied Political Science in college and although many people bemoaned Moore, and said to take everything with a grain of salt - i believe his documentaries are massively informative

    Except this one

    Rather than address the issue of trump - the how - the why - the where - we got
    • Russia dunnit - ok...
    • Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is amazing (she is of course, not taking away from that)
    • The Flint Water Crisis - again topical but .... Trump???
    • Hitler - way over the top
    • and a sprinkle of Anti Trump bits that have been covered in the mainstream globally and within the US

    In my opinion, this film smells of a 'We hate Trump.. because' Attitude - and i say that as someone who detests the man but this film ignored the Elephant in the room - he won - how - why - where?

    John Oliver's take down - prior to election - if moore had examined even half of these things - and why they didnt matter, and only brought more people to trumps side - it would have been possibly his best - he didnt - it wasnt

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

    Interested in the views and respectful as always

    EDIT - for an example of what this film should have used this 6 minute Johnathan Pie piece does a better job explaining things - and it took 6 minutes

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

    Sic semper tyrannis - thus always to Tyrants



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,357 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    The essence of the movie was that the Democrats shifted quite a bit to the right in the early 90s with the election of Bill Clinton essentially beating the Republicans at their own game.

    The Republicans moved even further to the right to counter this and talk radio /fox news etc blew up.

    Democrats stopped chasing their core support and instead courted the corporations and mega rich like the Republicans had done for decades.

    Obama f**cked up badly endorsing Rick Snyder who had been responsible for poisoning the people of Michigan.

    Trump waltzed into the rust belt with a faux left wing platform promising the government would help them and stole three key states.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,601 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Was also disappointed with it. Think he is a film maker on the decline for sure.

    I remember watching Sicko, and how he was telling the Americans about how the UK people got totally free health care. Yeah totally free if you forget about general taxation and National Insurance contributions.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,357 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Was also disappointed with it. Think he is a film maker on the decline for sure.

    I remember watching Sicko, and how he was telling the Americans about how the UK people got totally free health care. Yeah totally free if you forget about general taxation and National Insurance contributions.

    More American tax dollars per capita is spent on us health care than UK pounds is spent on NHS per capita..


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,304 ✭✭✭liamtech


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    The essence of the movie was that the Democrats shifted quite a bit to the right in the early 90s with the election of Bill Clinton essentially beating the Republicans at their own game.

    The Republicans moved even further to the right to counter this and talk radio /fox news etc blew up.

    Democrats stopped chasing their core support and instead courted the corporations and mega rich like the Republicans had done for decades.

    Obama f**cked up badly endorsing Rick Snyder who had been responsible for poisoning the people of Michigan.

    Trump waltzed into the rust belt with a faux left wing platform promising the government would help them and stole three key states.

    I agree with you on the democrats moving more to the right - similar in a way to Blairite New Labor around the same time -

    What i would say is that if that was the essence of the film, it was fairly dilute

    Also i think there is a lot more to Trumps victory than that - i do think it is miss directed rage against American Political establishment, a poor choice of Demo Candidate (which they look set to do all over again) - and a feeling that regardless of his faults, trump means what he says - i should reiterate that is what i suspect his voters believe - not at all my own opinion

    The general gist of what i am saying is that Moore missed an opportunity to explain and explore why he won - combined with the how (terrible tactics - appealing to the far right and supremacist movements), and the where (get in there, to 'fly over country' and talk to every day Americans) - this could have been an epic

    Sic semper tyrannis - thus always to Tyrants



  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster


    I love the energy of the you tube vid. And he’s dead right, I agree completely.

    The liberals have made pretty much every single argument you can think of that is or could be controversial either illegal or completely out of order an unacceptable to talk about it.

    This has given birth to what is in effect a blockade of free speech for millions of people, and therefore a rise in frustration sending these people to boiling point.

    And of course when the liberal thin skin is broken, people like trump burst out out the stomach like in the alien movies, subjects like brexit are debated so intensely and for so long that literally nobody can make sense of it.

    It’s the rainbow liberals, and the snowflake millennials that are to blame. Right?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,304 ✭✭✭liamtech


    Midster wrote: »
    I love the energy of the you tube vid. And he’s dead right, I agree completely.

    The liberals have made pretty much every single argument you can think of that is or could be controversial either illegal or completely out of order an unacceptable to talk about it.

    This has given birth to what is in effect a blockade of free speech for millions of people, and therefore a rise in frustration sending these people to boiling point.

    And of course when the liberal thin skin is broken, people like trump burst out out the stomach like in the alien movies, subjects like brexit are debated so intensely and for so long that literally nobody can make sense of it.

    It’s the rainbow liberals, and the snowflake millennials that are to blame. Right?

    I agree completely with you - i really like Johnathan Pie - you should check out his channel - covers Brexit and various other highlights - (my personal Favorite - hilarious and poignant at the same time - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2bVS40cz0 )

    I say this as a liberal and a leftie; yes regressive liberalism is on the rise in my opinion - and it leads to bizarre alliances - for example the fact that LGBTQ groups in france stood up for the rights of Muslims - during the Burka Ban Fiasco - this seems perfectly sensible as it did to me - before i began to think to consider that the more fundamentalist islamic groups (of which many were involved at the time) would of course have a serious problem (DEADLY SERIOUS if you follow) with the LGBTQ community - as someone who campaigned vigorously for marriage equality i then found myself in a curious position of being opposed to them (philosophically) in that scenario

    When certain facts, usually uncomfortable ones, are pointed out - regressive liberalism attacks it - and when asked why they take a certain position it is difficult for them to explain, except to say that it seemed the 'liberal' thing to do

    For a prime example of this check out Sam Harris when confronted by Ben Affleck on the Bill Maher show - near infamous - renowned scholar and athur, points out alarming statistics, which were backed up by peer reviewed research and polls - Ben Affleck called him a racist ???????:confused:

    Sic semper tyrannis - thus always to Tyrants



  • Registered Users Posts: 322 ✭✭Midster


    Also I have heard time and time again how people shouldn’t be typecast. For example people from Columbia being stopped at airports to find cocaine, people from known troubled neighborhoods being stopped and searched for weapons and plus drugs.
    It’s utter nonsense, being typecast night mean it’s a bit of a pain at times, but it also focuses efforts on one particular area to rid crime or drugs, it can make the police force more effective.
    Typecasting people can also mean there particular needs are catered for in whatever way is needed.
    The left have tried time and time again to prevent the word being used, but in some places, typecasting is completely necessary, and to go without it and generalize a concentrated problem would reduce our effective policing capability, and do us all a great harm.
    I love the guy in the you tube clip btw, never seen him before but he has a great no nonsense outlook, and it’s very refreshing to see and watch.


Advertisement