Re: Fahrenheit 9/11 i M. Moore.
The Evolution of Michael Moore
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Jun 24, 2004
The evolution of Michael Moore's new film is fascinating to watch. After winning an award at the Cannes Film Festival, Mr. Moore returned triumphantly to Hollywood and made this statement to reporters on June 9th:
"We want the word out. Any attempts to libel me will be met by force. The most important thing we have is the truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, then I'll take them to court."
"Them" were critics who were questioning the accuracy of Moore's charges against the Bush administration. "Truth" is rock solid information which, apparently, Michael Moore was sure he possessed.
But then a funny thing happened on the way to the Metroplex. The Nine Eleven Commission findings clashed with Moore's thesis that the Bushies had done something dastardly immediately after the attack by letting a bunch of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, fly out of the USA while everybody else was grounded. Apparently, that is not true, at least according to the FBI and the Commissioners, none of whom were jurors at the Cannes Film Festival.
So by June 20, Michael Moore had "evolved" a bit as many in Hollywood tend to do. He said this on an ABC News program: "(The movie) is an op-ed piece. It's my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And that's what I call it. I'm not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism."
No mention of truth this time but, as responsible columnists know, all op-ed pieces are supposed to be grounded in truth and facts should be cited in backing up one's op-ed opinion.
Uh-oh.
But just when Michael Moore was floundering in a sea of skepticism, New York Times critic A.O. Scott came to the rescue with this assessment Moore's film: "It might more accurately be said to resemble an editorial cartoon ..."
Paging Shrek! In the space of two weeks the Moore movie had gone from truth to opinion to cartoon, albeit an editorial one.
But the hits just keep on coming. Los Angeles Times film critic Kenneth Turan wrote this about Fahrenheit 9/11: "It is propaganda, no doubt about it, but propaganda is most effective when it has elements of truth ... "
So we're back to the truth now garnished with "elements."
I have seen the first half of Michael Moore's movie and here's the deal. It's slick propaganda that indicts President Bush for a variety of things using cut and paste video interspersed with the opinions of far left people like Democratic Congressmen Jim McDermott and John Conyers. For me, the first sixty minutes were tedious but I have to interview guys like that everyday so I'm jaded.
Any skilled filmmaker, and Moore is that, could fashion a movie making any American look like a pinhead. That's easy to do. Just get a bunch of video, some people who hate the guy, some factoids that may or may not be true, heat it up with sardonic rhetoric and serve. Presto, Fahrenheit 9/11.
So let's stop with the nonsense. If you want to pay 9 bucks to see Moore carve up the President, knock yourself out. But don't be calling me up telling me about truth, or elements thereof. This is rank propaganda and the American public is welcome to it. It will not evolve any further.
##
