Thanks for your thoughtful post. Now, here's a mention for you: Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot...who, as far as we know, DIDN'T tick off Ray Bradbury by stealing from him!

PA II

Tell me! :

What in the world is so difficult about making a satire, like '''Fahrenheit 9/11'''?

I think Moore purposely lets people say whatever they think that the picture is:
a documentary,
a cartoon,
whatever.
But it has been delivered as a satirical view of the war.

Anybody have to be told what a satire is?
Not really! But I'll say it anyway: Satires squeeze reality into a bulgy monster that gets across that exact personal view the author wants to make. In this case, the filmmaker.

This is NOT news reporting.

This is something close to black humor. And I hate most black humor... because it isn't humorous. ''Fargo'', the movie, was black humor. I enjoyed it, probably because the acting was so good. There were also really incredible moments in the film.

Say what you want. But the way the country is divided... (and, if you did not know it already, this country has '''ALWAYS''' been divided, one way or another, more or less).

President FDR united the country in WorldWar 2.... but there is always a segment out there wanting to kill whatever President is in office, always a group that hates the movie ''Singing in the Rain'', always a group out there that think the Earth is really flat, always a group out there that never heard much less read the 'The History of Civilzation' by Will Durant, always a group out there that say it's illogical for God to exist, always a group out there that think this country isn't perfect. To THAT group, they got it right.
You got something better? Well, Moore thinks so...

So let Moore have his say.

But please, don't lecture to THIS segment of the country that this is Bible truth here in this movie. Otherwise, it turns to be a ''mockery''... of what Moore believes is lies being perpetuated by the Bush administration, of his version as he sees it.

Uncle Tom's Cabin captured a horrendous crime telling the truth about something that many were in denial about. But it's important to note that this country had ambibvilant and anti-slavery feelings from it's inception. Compromises were made, which means persons did not get what they wanted.

I'm sure Moore's film has some truths in it, but he attacks issues with such bias, and so arbitrarily selects facts, that the end result -- even if he can state that his factoids are individually true -- leads to false impressions and conclusions and oversimplifications. The claim that the entire middle east war and the terrorist attacks are all caused by greedy American oil money is just very, very simplistic. To blame Bush for 9/11 is a bit silly, since it happened so soon after the election and the planning of this thing has been documented to be in the planning stages for a very long time.

I think satire is great. I get tired of two things on this:

(1) I get tired of people over-characterizing Bradbury's position on this. He simply has NOT turned this into a furor -- this has been Moore's people doing this. Bradbury has answered some interview questions and that is it. He never claimed copyright, never threatened a lawsuit, and never held a press conference to attack Moore. Nor has he (or his fans) swamped opposing web sites to try to trample the opinions of others, the way Moore's fans have.

(2) Even Moore does not call this a documentary. I'm sick of people calling it a documentary, when it is simply not a documentary.

I think it's quite a bit early to be comparing 9/11 to Uncle Tom's Cabin, at least as far as impact and staying power go. That would be like saying "Hulk" is the next "Wizard of Oz" because it made $62 million dollars in its opening weekend ("Hulk" went on to drop 80% the next weekend to bring in only $19 million). Why did Hulk do so well in the beginning? Because of the Hype, and that may be what's going on with Fahrenheit 9/11. Time will tell. I haven't seen the movie yet, but hopefully I'll get to see it this weekend. I suspect I'll get a kick out of parts, and be moved by other parts, but I'm sure a great deal will be misleading and just plain wrong. It's interesting that Moore constantly says, "All of the facts in my movie are true." Of course the FACTS are true, facts have to be true by definition, but I'm sure there are plenty of lies in there. How does one differentiate the lies from the facts? Research beyond the movie. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I'll be going into this movie after having studied Moore's other movies and found them to be extremely (and intentionally) misleading and deceptive. Maybe this new movie will earn Moore a place in history, but I suspect like "Triumph of the Will" it will be remembered as an example of effective propaganda. In fact it's even more heavy handed than Leni Riefenstahl's style. I suspect Moore's "fact checking" really just researched how well they could manipulate the truth, and I recommend that anyone who sees the film check the facts themselves afterwards.

Interfector is good with words, no question about it. He's also arrogant, which is fine (with me, at least). Interfector, do you mind emailing me what you wrote (bookwise, like)? I am very much interested. My word no one will find out who you are.

Cheers, Translator

This is my first post here. I regard Ray Bradbury as one of the best, if not THE best, writers of the 20th century. That said, however, I'm surprised at his complaining about Michael Moore's movie title. I would have thought Mr. Bradbury to be above that sort of thing.

Secondly -- didn't Ray Bradbury write a short story titled "Usher Two"? If Poe was alive, do you think he'd be upset about it?

Mike

For the 10,000th time . . . Poe is dead, Bradbury is alive.

So? The principle is the same. I would have thought that Ray Bradbury was above this.

frost

chill out !

Chill out? I don't recall getting emotional. Actually, the point is, Bradbury needs to "chill out".

My question, rephrased, is this: How is Michael Moore naming his movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" somehow worse than Ray Bradbury naming a short story "Usher Two"?

Because E.A. Poe is dead? What does that have to do with it? So it would have been OK, if Bradbury had died?

"Chill out" isn't a well thought out answer.

frost

Oh! But you seem to be emotional.
And that you don't know it, requires that someone bring it to your attention.

I would have thought a board devoted to the works of Ray Bradbury would not have folks that resorted to "ad hominem" attacks in a friendly debate.

One of the best things about Ray Bradbury's works is that he helped one to learn to THINK. So I'm amazed at your reply.

(In case you are wondering what "ad hominem" means: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.)

So, instead of attacking me, why don't you just answer the question.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this:

A good debate is fun and educational. I like debate because I might learn something, or better, yet, bring someone 'round to my point of view.

Good debates are hard to find on internet message boards: Too often, the debate degenerates into "You're wrong because you're an idiot" types of statements (or "you're wrong because you're emotional")

The fact that I cannot logically discuss this title issue on a BRADBURY board, with other Bradbury readers, saddens me. I would have thought Bradbury readers would be above that kind of immature response.

But, then again, I'm also saddened that Ray Bradbury, one of my heroes, has turned out to be someone that whines about someone else "stealing" his title.

I guess I'll just end it by saying this: If we can't logically discuss this, without resorting to "you're being emotional" remarks, and keep the debate to the ISSUE, then what's the point?

frost

Just some advice that you find chilling. No need to be defensive.

That definition, however, is a little thin. 'ad hominem' has more to do with being prejudiced against someone. I think your 'attitude' stinks, not you.

So, I take it you're not going to answer the question?