This Divided State

You know, I've heard a lot of contentious things said about this movie and its filmmakers. And I think those that make the contentious comments have missed the point of the film. The film illustrates what happens when people stop listening to each other and they quit acting mature. One of my favorite moments in the film is when you realize that almost the entire debate, on both sides, are from people who believe in the exact same things. And they don't even know it because they are all too close-minded to listen to each other for whatever reason.

I think it's humorous and sad that a small group of filmmakers are being angered by some things that came about in production and post-production and are too short-sighted to see that they helped create a fantastic film that has accomplished wonderful things. It's reaching people. I saw it on a tour across the nation. How many filmmakers can say that a film they made was put on tour by an organization as prestigious as the Center for American Progress.

I think it would do these few, petty individuals a lot better in the long run to look at the good the film is doing now and in the future, instead of the perceived (likely, imagined) harm behind them.

I think this film is quite important and I think that getting people to watch it will strengthen the quality of civil discourse in the nation. I think it would do well for Sean Hannity to see the film. I think it would do well for those out of touch with reality (like George Bush and John Kerry) to see the film.

I would highly recommend that anyone reading this see the film.

The American heartland of tolerance proves to be tolerant only to its own beliefs.

What should have been just another election time political talk turned to be an insight into the democratic values of USA.

The producers take their time to build up our knowledge of the students and the community involved, and it is a good thing. This moves the focus away from Moore and into the events that transpired before (and after) his arrival. Good time is spent on the students themselves and their views, as well as the major figure representing the conservative residents. Both sides get a fair balance.

What comes out of the film is how shockingly low are the democratic values many US citizens hold. In a country which prides itself about being an example of democracy, a leader of the "Free World" there is just as much intolerance as anywhere else. The part where the conservative personality gives a talk is unpleasant to watch for any supporter of democracy.

This documentary should strike the average US American as a wake up call about how complacent democratic citizens can be when it comes to their political ideas. Everyone likes to thing they are upstanding democratic citizens, until M.Moore comes to town! The true test of democracy is being willing to listen to points of view opposite to your own and not outright dismiss them as wrong or even evil. This little film painfully depicts that (at least) the Utah community failed this test miserably.

On the other hand I'm sure that many Utah citizens didn't have a problem with M.Moore coming to town. Unfortunately either the film fails to represent them or I am mistaken and the film is right in giving the impression that most of Utah agreed with the extreme undemocratic views expressed from their prominent(?) citizen.

Is this the nature of politics? To be divisive? Would M.Moore speaking in a New York University have made such a show? Unlikely. Then I guess it must have been something about this Utah community. That could have been an area that the documentary could have explored. In doing so it would have be digging deeper into the heart of politics (and rational thought at that). Stil, even with its more narrow scope this little gem does very well. Very well indeed.

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.

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?

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.