This Divided State

I have to admit, I'm baffled by the constant attacks on Moore, (that his films are supposedly sloppy, poorly researched, one-sided and full of "lies.") I'm not saying that every single detail in "F911" is true, but I think Moore's films are a lot more accurate and balanced than he gets credit for. I think Moore's films, by and large are every bit as accurate as most "serious" documentary films (the only difference being that Moore's films generate blockbuster box office). Most of the attacks that I've seen on Moore's work are often highly selective, misleading and full of lies themselves. And these days, what exactly is the "truth"? I mean, Bush tells more lies in a typical 15-minute speech than you'll get from watching any Moore film. (But you'd never convince a brainwashed fanatical Bush supporter that their beloved hero lies about anything). And Fox "News" spews out lies and right-wing propaganda 24 hours a day. Even the media that the intellectual Left respects (The New York Times) is full of lies these days. I mean, reporter Judith ("Bush's Case for War is Solid") Miller told many lies in a highly deceptive manner. Bottom line: if Moore's work was so full of "lies," then he would not have been the target of the extraordinary and vicious attacks and deaths threats that he's received from the Right in this country. Instead of going through Moore's work with a fine tooth comb and trying to pick out tiny flaws, I suggest you examine the central premise that Moore raises in his work. Most of the investigative legwork in "F911" for example was done by Craig Unger, who's "House of Bush, House of Saud" was a devastating indictment of the Bush Crime Family. Unger's work was, by the way, completely ignored by the U.S. mainstream media----so we ought to be grateful to Moore for giving Unger a platform that he otherwise wouldn't have had. And as far as the "lies" in Moore's films, instead of slandering the man's films with sweeping generalizations, how about someone here actually specifically detailing a few of these "lies" for a change?

I saw this film and it's amazing. It's about the failure of civil discourse in America and it shows the current divisive nature of politics. Whether you agree with Michael Moore or not, you'll agree that the crazy people who tried to stop him from speaking overreacted immensely and made Utah look like some foreign country. Additionally, I think the film was unbiased and showed an honest portrayal or the events without skewing the facts or taking things out of context.I don't understand why some people gave this film a "1" rating. They either must hate films about positive messages, have never seen the film, or are just jealous that it's so bloody good. I give it a "10" across the board. See this film! You'll learn something!

This is a fine, fine documentary.

Stangely--or, perhaps, tellingly--the only "weak" part is the footage of the "provacative" speaking engagements by Hannity and Moore. At the end of my viewing of the main movie, before watching the extras, I was left with impressions of these appearances as being weaker than the dialog (and diatribe) shown in the rest of the film. What the editors decided to show was pretty much the "feel-good" aspect of Hannity and Moore's deliveries; the playing-to-the-crowd, singing-to-the-choir stuff. However, there were two extras tracks featuring more of the content part of these talks, which were significantly more substantive, especially Moore's, than what you see in the movie. Bonus tracks are nice, but in the end a movie needs to be able to "stand alone." As it was, it left me with a feeling that all the community fire and passion which had gone before had been ill-spent on these unworthies; that's it's one thing to vociferously defend the right of someone to challenge prevailing thought, but it's another to have your beneficiary then use that podium to pat backs and not hit the issues hard. Again though, the extra footage showcasing Moore's substantive positions mitigated this, and, to a lesser extent, with Hannity.

In my humble opinion, if you keep that proviso in mind, you'll find the movie well worth viewing, and in fact a pretty good picture of red-state mentality. Remember: It *can* happen here.

The ideologically bankrupt American populist right (not to be confused with intellectually honest, legitimate fiscal and/or social conservatives) has for many years now been handled with kid gloves. Social dialog in America has given serious consideration, for example, to such absurdities as given the "competing theories" of evolution and "intelligent design", "equal time." We have been browbeaten to accept obvious distorting blow-hards such as Anne Coulter as "columnists" and even "intellectuals." Here's the brilliance of Divided State: it doesn't take the kid gloves off (so it can't be accused of overt bias), but it does nevertheless show in no uncertain terms a clear dividing line between good and evil, between thoughtful and knee-jerk, between reasoned and ideologue. Without saying so explicitly, this movie very says loudly and clearly: these guys here are evil, greedy, manipulative buffoons and charlatans, while those guys are over there are decent and thoughtful.

But who is who? By any standard, the heroes of this story are the Utah Valley State College (UVSC) student leaders who took a not unreasonable stand against the many biases of their closed community at large and the many students of all political stripes who had the intestinal fortitude and intellectual honesty to support them. The heroes were the ones who spoke not in slogans, but in ideas, and could back up their views with reasoned, nuance, and, as this theme deals with uniquely American topics, Constitutionality.

By this and really any standard, the main antagonist, a local conservatively-minded resident, comes off as an absolute buffoon, and rightly so. The man was such a one-dimensional caricature of himself that I half expected a "kicker" at the end to be that he had done his actions as some sort of "test" to teach the students a good civics lesson (no spoiler here: he wasn't - he was sincere.) By this standard also, it's not too much of a surprise that windbag conservative host Sean Hannity also is far less than the sum of his salary might suggest when he is held up to the light.

The true genius of the filmmakers, however, was to show how even the movie's Messiah of sorts, liberal wind-bag Michael Moore, was also a particularly naked emperor.

There's a lot of good about this movie. See it.

Despite the fact that it is a Michael Moore-style documentary starring Michael Moore, it is in fact directed by the not-so-well-known Steven Greenstreet. If I had known this before I started watching, I may have just assumed that this is one of Moore's fans trying to piggy-back off his success and earn a few dollars. I'm glad that I didn't realise until the closing credits.

The documentary follows the enormous controversy surrounding Utah Valley State College's decision to host a speech from Michael Moore in the lead-up to the 2004 Presidential Election. It follows the protesters on both sides and in particular the student council leaders responsible for the event.

I must say I was somewhat amazed by the lack of blatant view-pushing. The documentary captured exactly what the title suggests - two fiercely opinionated and divided camps. There is very little intervention by the film-maker, and given the shocking nature of some of the material, any nudging towards the direction of free speech really isn't necessary.

What I saw shocked me far more than I expected. I mean, I know that Utah is the reddest state in the Union, and I know that they are 75% Mormon, and I know that they don't like Michael Moore, but I was absolutely dumbstruck by their complete intolerance and ridicule of "liberals". Sean Hannity is a well-respected Republican figure in the state, and the film includes footage of his speech given to a packed stadium at Utah Valley State College in the lead-up to Moore's visit. During this speech, when Hannity asks for a show of hands as to who will be voting for Kerry, any person who dares raise their hand is booed, called a "fool" and told that they are still young so they will learn. Hannity even goes so far as to mock liberals for being poor and singles out one proud Democrat who he brings up onto the stage offering to "Hannitise" him before feeding him to the wolves. Apparently, "liberals" such as Moore are corrupting us with "evil filth" when we choose to listen to him.

The telling part for me, is that whilst Moore aims to shock (with the noble intention of moving people to action instead of apathy), at no stage did he resort to such tactics in his speech at the university. He spoke about freedom of speech, about the war on Iraq and about non-discrimination. Pretty decent goals really.