Hi, Translator,

I won't see his movie for these reasons:

� My bias won't allow me to judge the movie fairly. (Though I am looking forward to reading your review of the movie. How fairly do you think you�ll be able to judge the movie?) Sure, we all bring our biases to the art we consume. I try to recognize mine and react accordingly. From what I�ve read about Moore, he�s not exactly my cup of tea. Still, his movie deserves a fair shake and I can�t give it one.

� As a consumer of movies, I try to research those I see very carefully. I think have a wide variety of critics that I consult and then I use that information to help me decide which movies I want to see. Then I make up my own mind. Though MSNBC reports roughly 80% favorable towards the film, many of those reviews were actually quite mixed. And you already know what I think about Hitchens and his review. My conclusion so far is that this isn�t a movie I�d like to see.

� As a stay-at-home Dad to two girls, our resources are limited. Thus, I have to choose carefully the art I/we consume. (Translation: I�m a cheap SOB!) (Oh, wait. I forgot: You�re Translator. You need no help with that translation.) I don�t think spending our funds for this movie is a wise choice for us. Would I see it if it were free? Well, nothing�s ever free, is it? Who would I see about getting my precious time back if it turned out to be a waste of it?

I have tried in the past, and will continue to do so, to restrict myself to comments that refer to only sources that I�m familiar with about the movie, knowing full well I can�t speak to it directly like those who have seen it may. I trust you�ll keep me to this standard.

Best,

Pete

As far as I know, Shakespeare is now in the public domain; I can print any of his works I want, get paid for them, and not have to give any money to his descendants (if he has any known ones).

I think they should call it "Michael Moore's Training Camp for Internet Terrorists!"

Pterran
disregard my previous call for you to see the movie; I wrote it without reading the above.
I fully understand the money issues - I'm not a parent, and yet I have problems all the time (the writing industry doesn't pay well for translating poems, I can tell you that).
Every movie I see will be biased, based on my then state of mind, so I don't personally mind the thought. I can tell you that I try not to get overly biased - I've only read three reviews of the movie, of which the 3rd was the Hitchens review, and gave a link to rotten tomatoes without reading the contents (I just wanted others to have a broader opinion). I generally stay away from reviews, forewords, and introductions until after I read a book or see a movie; only then do I flip to the front and read about it (which is why I support those who make "afterwords" instead of "introductions"). But I see where you're coming from.

Cheers, Translator

You know, here's the funny thing:

I swear to you, on my honor, the following things.

I did NOT EVER EQUATE the title "Fahrenheit 9/11" with the book "Fahrenheit 451." I swear that this is true. Maybe I am a) retarded, b) an idiot, or c) just completely moronically idiotically retardedly stupid. But seriously -- I wasn't even thinking about it.

I just thought, "oh -- hey, cool name. I wonder why he chose THAT name, instead of naming it something like, 'Stupid White Men and a very idiotic black woman' or something like that."

Seriously!



And now that all of this idiocy about this movie has finally exploded, well..you know...

I can be a bit of a meathead.

But the fact is that there really, seriously, ARE WAY MORE important things to consider with respect to this film. I've now seen it three times in three days -- a feat, in my life, equalled only by my seeing FOUR times in FIVE days "Jurassic Park III" in the theater. (I'm not kidding either...)



And there are some important controversies brewing over the 9/11 film. Such as whether it is legal to prevent Moore from advertising the film (it isn't) or whether the Republicans are correct in stating that his movie is full of lies (it isn't) or whether the footage that he used accurately depicts the people involved IN THEIR OWN (stupid, moronic, and idiotic as they may be, but still very much their own) WORDS, et cetera.

And this is why I'm going to stop spending so much time worrying about whether Bradbury (language deleted for "is acting inadvisedly") or not. I don't care anymore. Because the only thing that really, truly, actually matters is the following:

THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN POSSIBLY NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE FALLOUT FROM THIS FILM IS CURRENTLY OUR "president."

And that is also the truth.

Enjoy the day.

- Sammy
http://www.sammyjames.com

[This message has been edited by dandelion (edited 06-28-2004).]

Sammyjames,

A few points:

Interesting you didn�t make the connection to F-451. I don�t think that makes you stupid. But it was Moore�s intent to connect to the book. In the confines of this site, this controversy is obviously important to many of us but to most people this isn�t a big deal at all. Nice of you to remind us.

I�m no so sure it�s NOT illegal for Moore to advertise his film. Though I�m opposed to the McCain-Feingold bill, I think it�s a restriction of free speech. Yes, Moore should be allowed to advertise his film if he wishes but the law may not allow him to. Election reformers may have inadvertently shot themselves in the foot on this one. But Moore�s stated intent of his movie is to directly affect the election and that might qualify the ads as political speech. Again, I don�t think it should be restricted but the law�s the law.

Not to be Clinonian about it but, no, Republicans don�t think the movie is FULL of lies. Many Republicans, and some liberals/progressives/Democrats, think the movie has enough lies to undermine its message, whatever it is. (Full disclosure: I haven�t seen the movie and don�t intend to.)

Best,

Pete

P.S.

Interesting website. Thanks for the link. Good luck with your music.

As I understood, the issue in advertising the movie concerned images of Bush--in giving him unequal air time with other candidates. Couldn't the movie be advertised without specifically depicting Bush?

"In the interview with the Swedish paper, Bradbury reportedly predicted a dim forecast for "9/11" at the box office. "Who cares? Nobody will see his movie," Bradbury told the paper. "It is almost dead already. Never mind, nobody cares.""

As smart as Bradbury is, I think this is a little childish of him. His anger is transparent. Plus:

"In just three days, 'Fahrenheit 9/11' smashed the 1.6-million-dollar-record for ticket sales for a documentary set over a nine-month run by Moore's Oscar-winning 'Bowling for Columbine'."

and:

"The polemical film earned $23.9 mn at the box office in its North American debut, more than any other documentary in history"

Come on Ray, let it go.
http://sify.com/news/international/fullstory.php?id=13509567

http://www.nbc6.net/entertainment/3390666/detail.html

Simply renamed it The Truth.

As discussed in other posts, I don't concur that it's a documentary. If you compare it to a real blockbuster based on documents and presenting a single point of view (The Passion of the Christ)Moore's movie barely represents a trickle against the ocean of viewers who saw The Passion. I don't remember the numberss on opening weekend, but it blew this film out of the water. Not a fair comparison? Maybe. But I simply don't view Moore's work as the work of a documentarian. He's a great propogantist with a gift for self promotion. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not documentary.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 06-29-2004).]

Hey guys:

Okay -- well, I have a lot of work to do now, so I'm going to stop posting here. I do enjoy writing, and I do enjoy the responses that you guys are all sending these days, but I'm simply way too busy now. But anyway, I'll wrap up my comments about the Fahrenheit issue:

1. I like Ray a lot, and I feel bad that he got himself all twitterpated over this silly controversy. I suppose that if he were to take the view that "in another five years, none of this will matter..." well...who knows? Maybe it WILL matter in another five years, especially if Bradbury likes Bush and wants for him to win.

I can't imagine why a man who is as intelligent as Mr. Bradbury strikes me as being would want to install an obviously inept and incompetent man as G.W. Bush. But you know...there are lots of people who do stupid things.

2. Mr. Bradbury's books are the reason why I got into enjoying his work to begin with. So I suppose that I won't lose a lot of sleep over this whole "movie thing."

3. Mr. Moore, as controversial as he is, is not the anti-Christ. (This is seconded by those who have shown that his movie hasn't put a dent in Christ's most recent box-office smash.) And I also think that Michael has been villified in ways that I simply don't understand. He disagrees with what Bush and his administration have done. I also disagree with Bush. If I were to have the kind of money and influence that Moore has, I would have done the same thing.

Why not just say that Moore has every right to do what he is doing?! After all, this IS America. And no one is talking about whether Bush will be running three times the number of ads that Kerry will be able to run in August, after the Democratic convention is over and the Democrats have to accept the measly 45 million or whatever it is that they'll get from Feingold-McCain thing or whatever...

So, that is it. I encourage anyone with a brain to think and respond.

Enjoy the day.

Sincerely,

Sammy James http://www.sammyjames.com

P.S. Pete -- thanks for the kind words. Yes, I am a record producer. Take care.

Oh, but actually, one final thing:

I'll confess that I was kind of surprised that the McCain-Feingold thing could be used against Moore. I guess that I, ignorantly, always assumed that this law was useful only when trying to prevent a CANDIDATE from using HIS OWN money in certain ways.

I was not aware that a private or even a public citizen, who is not himself running for office, could be prevented from using his own money to make a political statement -- even with 30 days of a convention, et cetera.

Does anyone actually know the text of the law? Am I off in la-la land on this?

Sammy James

Just joined to say this:

First, if you want to hear Ray Bradbury speak on his own behalf, go to www.wbur.org, the local NPR news station in Boston. Robin Young interviewed Mr. Bradbury on the "Here and Now" program at noon yesterday, June 29. (You can find it by doing an easy search. Hear and Now links back to this site.)

Second, Mr. Bradbury said his book was primarily about literacy and the dangers of the loss of literacy, particularly the failure of schools to teach literacy at the younger ages. And, I extrapolate from his words although he did not say this outright, the loss to our society when people stop thinking and analysing for themselves.

Third, Mr. Bradbury indicated that Michael Moore's comment "9/11 is the temperature at which freedom burns" is a false analogy. That Michael Moore's movie has nothing to do with the messages Mr. Bradbury felt he was pursing in his book. He obviously feels his message has been hijacked and diluted by Michael Moore's use of the title of Mr. Bradbury's book.


And frankly, I agree with Mr. Bradbury. It's a hollow analogy. It didn't make a lot of sense to me that Michael Moore would name the movie "Fareinheit 9/11" - I don't see any similarity in his railing against the Bush Administration and Mr. Bradbury's warning against the dangers of literacy and becoming too addicted to moving images. (I don't even understand Mr. Moore's movie to really be about free speech, either. It may be free speech for him to create and publish the movie, but that has nothing to do with whether the Bush Administration failed to pay enough attention to terrorists and allowed 9/11 to happen. But I have not seen the movie - I'm only going the information contained in reviews I have read.)

Indeed, I am almost amused by the irony. Mr. Moore made a movie - moving images. There are plenty of moving images in Mr. Bradbury's book and they are clearly the problem in Mr. Bradbury's view. Mr. Bradbury warns against allowing moving images (TV, movies) to take over our lives and dictate our thoughts, instead of pursing literacy and learning on our own.

Images are powerful, and persuasive. But they are also easy. It is easy to sit slackjawed in front of a TV, or a movie, and accept those images as true. (That's why there is such a huge problem with advertising to children.) It is harder to read a news analysis, because to read it, you must attempt to understand it, which requires using your brain.

It seems to me that Michael Moore just thought it would be a catchy name and so he used it. He didn't spend much time thinking about whether the message of his movie really had anything to do with Mr. Bradbury's book. He obviously didn't have the courtesy to call Mr. Bradbury before and discuss it. In fact, he reportedly waited 6 months to return any calls to Mr. Bradbury about the title.

It is my understanding as well that titles are not protected by copyright in the U.S., so it is unlikely that the title alone would be the basis for a legitimate law suit in the U.S. There may be an argument if Michael Moore has done more to "trade off" of the title/concept made famous by Mr. Bradbury (advertising, making it seem like Bradbury approved, etc.) but that seems unlikely.

I don't blame Mr. Bradbury for being annoyed, though. There is no reason to choose "Farenheit 9/11" without specifically intending to reference the famous book - it is a phrase that otherwise means nothing on its own. To me, it just shows me that Mr. Moore was just trying to trade off of Mr. Bradbury's creative work. Mr. Moore could have spent a little more time with his brain cells and come up with his own title.

I have not seen the movie. But I also find it annoying that Mr. Moore would be sanctimonious about his own point of view, and have no problem trading off of someone else. So, I doubt I'll go. I'll stick to getting my news and analysis from the newspapers. And NPR.

Whoa!