Fahrenhype 9/11

First off, let's get one thing straight here: FahrenHYPE 9/11 is not a stand-alone film. It is necessary to have seen Fahrenheit 9/11 (which is usually not a problem). Preferably, you would want to watch Heit and Hype back-to-back, in that order. When you do, the strengths of Hype come to light and the weaknesses of Heit are brought to sharp relief.

What are the weaknesses in Heit?

• Overly sappy and emotional ("Human interest stories: they tug at the heart, and fog the mind." -- Kent Brockman). More than half of the movie is nothing more than emotion, which is inherently irrational (and so can't be debunked), but also is inherently impossible to show for large groups, and so is meaningless here.

• Interviews on other subjects were purchased and spliced together deceptively. Many scenes are clearly archival footage taken out of context, or just plain pointless (what does Wolfowitz's comb tell us about 9/11?).

• Weak connections were made in what is oh-so-obviously nothing more than a common conspiracy theory.

• There were a lot of people who have no better reason to know what was going on than you or I.

What are the strengths of Hype?

• Excepting the last 10 or 20 minutes there was little to no sap, and what emotion existed was placed inside well constructed arguments.

• Many people interviewed in Heit were given a chance in Hype to speak their minds not only on politics, but on Moore's film.

• Major instances of outright deceit in Heit were debunked (to the extent one would expect in a documentary).

• The film has an impressive cast compared to the unidentified elderly bingo players and working class military mom interviewed in Heit (senator Zell Miller, former mayor of NY Ed Koch, political commentator Ann Coulter, former Asst. Secretary of Defense David Frum, and the former adviser to Bill Clinton Dick Morris--of whom Time magazine had some very nice things to say--among others).

• The people in Hype were not all of one political mindset: the teacher who was with Bush on 9/11 clearly was no fan of his; Zell Miller, despite a recent departure from party lines, is a Democrat and has stated that he has no desire to change; and Dick Morris' power reached a zenith under Clinton.

Hype is not a tit-for-tat debunking of Heit--though it never tries to be, and can't be, for time constraints. It points out just a few of "The 59 Deceits of Fahrenheit 9/11" and lists several places to go for more information (I just quoted the title of one of them). What documentary on the Discovery Channel gives you that?

In that regard, FahrenHYPE 9/11 is one of the most morally well-made and usefully layered documentaries I have ever seen--if you just want to know whether or not to trust Moore, you can get that, but if you want proof and detail it'll tell you where to find it.

The tone of Hype is quite interesting, as it is more conversational and less lecture than one would expect from most documentaries. It's like you're sitting and talking with these people over coffee (incidentally, Dick Morris does have a coffee cup in some of his segments). In a casual debate with friends, you don't press them to cite their source right then, nor do you stop them from interjecting what they view as common sense into the conversation (despite how that's more opinion than fact). Sometimes they even get angry and forceful, but if your friends are worth debating at all they still make arguments that get you somewhere.

That's what Hype occupies most of its time doing. It's not a straight debunking, they're attacking the concepts underlying the first film. In that regard, Hype tears Heit to shreds.

In the end, I think, if you're going to watch one you must watch the other--but never forget to periodically take a step back and think, "Does what I'm seeing make a rational argument or present a fact that seems reasonable, or is it just plucking the heartstrings, or is it just filler?"

All who saw Moore's film should see this. It shows the lies, the twistings, the dishonesty, the other side. There are interviews with people who were used in Moore's film. There are interviews with people who know about various claims that Moore makes. It has a response to most every scene or accusation from Moore's film, and they are not scraping the barrel to answer them: rather they show how absurd Moore was in his claims. It brings context to policy that Moore pretends is Bush acting in self-interest or for oil. But mostly it shows how distorted Moore was in his presentation of soldiers and America and also Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

Many of those used in his moves: A) did not know nor give permission to be used in the film B) were used completely out of context so as to turn their words around into opposite meaning C) were mad as hell about it and felt violated and wronged

Their words were used to mean that they were angry at Bush and America when in truth they felt the opposite. If you see these longer interviews with them it shows that the opposite of what Moore insinuates is actually true. Anyone who has seen Michael Moore's film should see this one too.

I'll give this film credit for two things: 1) being fairly focused on only refuting elements of Fahrenheit 911 , and 2) having Zell Miller in the film. This guy is like a legend in Georgia, and comes across as very wise.

Besides those things the film has its share of problems. The one point they have on Michael Moore (if this is true, which it seems to be) is that he took an opinion article and changed it to make it look like a newspaper headline. I agree, that was wrong, but to tell you the truth i never notice it when i watch the film.

Politically I belong to neither party(i voted for Ralph), so it's easy for me to spot the bs on both sides, and I feel that many other viewers can too(i could be wrong). For example, i'm sure kids weren't laughing and flying kites in Iraq just before we bombed it, but I also don't necessarily believe someone in a film like this saying something about what Michael Moore said firsthand to them, like "You're making too much out of these 911 deaths". Proof, please? Anyone who's ever seen F911 will know that Moore would never say or think such a thing. Maybe he gave off a certainly vibe they didn't like or they think he's anti-American.Here's a thought for the director: keep opinions *out* of documentaries, at least as many of them as you can, and just focus on the FACTS. not just something Ann Coulter says about betting someone anything that "a liberal will never mention the Kurds." That is just faulty and mindless rambling imo. The narrator or Ann COULD have made that into a constructive argument, like how many Kurds were killed, or SOME FACT instead of some funny jab at the lefties. It's not offensive, just annoying.

Maybe Moore did his math wrong and OK, maybe $860 billion *isn't* 7-8% of our economy, however i doubt a fan of F911 would ever spout that percentage as it's obvious in Ft911 that he just guessed the percentage while he was on the side of the road talking to an officer. Again, pointless.

This film goes on further to attack the film over minute points from the fact that "not ALL recruiters are pushy, LOOK! Here's a real good-looking non-menacing one...BINGO!" Come on. They also say stupid things about why Moore's statements are false. Example, "we didn't go to Iraq for oil, because otherwise why would the gas prices be so high?!" Oh, and even more brilliant, "we don't go into Iran for oil", (so what?) and Israel is our friend and **they** don't have oil. (No sh** sherlock, they're not making a point, just proving the opposite, that if Israel did have oil America wouldn't have the same buddy-relationship.)I understand that some Bush supporters get offended by little bites and quips such as those recruiters and those soldiers at war that seemed cold-hearted in F911, but trying to whine over the most superficial points ain't gonna get you anywhere.

Another thing~ noticed I use the term "Bush supporters" and not conservatives or Republicans. One of this film's biggest weaknesses is to portray Democrats/liberals as "the other side". That's what upsets me, because it's something Moore never does. For example, this film tries to defend Bush and the Carlyle group by naming the Democrats who got rich off of it as well. OK, does that make it any less corrupt? Or the banquet to raise $ for Catholic schools wasn't elitist, because Al Gore attended. Oh, yeah... a Democrat! I just think these arguments are childish and the film sort of looks too desperate and too sensitive on parts of Moore's film that weren't even the real issues.

No one talked about, for example: -Why out of all other countries, including Saudi Arabia, was Iraq more of a target than the others. -James R.Bath, and why the Bush team blacked his name out of his military records if they weren't afraid of being linked to Osama bin Laden's family. -Why we gave Osama a 3month head start before looking for him. -Why the Patriot Act (and others) don't get read by most of Congress before getting passed. Instead they talk about only why the PAct is so great. -Dick Cheney's involvement at Halliburton and how lucrative the war is for him.

All in all, this film is too loaded with opinion and perspective, though I liked Zel Miller's story about the copperhead snakes:)and what's worse is it accuses MM of profiting off others' misery but it's as if this film tried to do that even more, with crying families saying that Moore is shaming the soldiers that dies for the freedom of our nation and that many liberals are misguided (there they go again with grouping one side against the other.

Bottom line: this film confirmed what i thought about F911 in the first place: that Bush is a man with a lot of ties to various interests and is indebted and obliged to the Saudi family, in many ways because of his father. THIS CAN't BE GOOD FOR US. I'm not questioning Bush's resolve, determination, patriotism, contribution to troops, sense of humour, and prise for America, and Moore never questioned any of it either. The only thing he (and I)questions are his motives and friendly attitude toward the Saudis.

This film is basically the film adaptation of the Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911.

The star of the show, Dick Morris... Is someone I can take as truthful... As he actually worked for the Clinton administration as a head executive. Morris and a few Neo Cons like Ann Coulter and a appearance by myself, Zell Miller... Make commentaries on what information Moore had and apply it to what had actually happened.

The coverage of the myths is pretty solid... Except for the Patriot Act... Which they cover the benefits and not the downfalls of it.

But other than that... They basically debunk Moore's lies with a lot of credibility.

I have seen Liberals commenting on this stating that it is stupid, and untrue... I wonder how many of those same people even questioned Moore's conclusions on a lot of things.

This movie completely destroys the credibility of Michael Moore. People in the film acknowledged how they were 'duped' by Moore and taken out of context. Well done. I was embarrassed for Moore while viewing this film. I am a former fan of Michael Moore - but now he will be considered completely ignorant. I am a democrat and was curious about Fahrenheit 9/11 because things in Moore's story just didn't seem to add up logically. The guy clearly has an extreme left wing agenda and will propagate any way possible. If you want to see what even Hollywood insiders think of Moore - a very liberal gang - see Team America: World Police. Surely a ridiculous movie, but it is fun to see Moore get blown up - as he is as a result of FarenHYPE!!!!