list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Fahrenheit 9/11 on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Fahrenheit_9_11/244442/default.aspx Title: Fahrenheit 9/11
Year: 2004
Director: Michael Moore
Plot: Directed by Michael Moore, whose aura of controversy only grew after his Oscar acceptance speech at the 2003 Academy Awards, Fahrenheit 9/11, like Moore's Bowling For Columbine and Roger & Me, promises to expose the corporate wrongdoings and big-money scandals perpetrated by America's financial elite. This movie, however, looks beyond the inner echelons of General Motors and Lockheed Martin in hopes of outing the evildoers in the White House, particularly in regards to the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush. In addition to criticizing the administration's handling of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, Moore digs deep into the surprising relationship with the Bin Laden family held by both Bush administrations, and questions whether or not potential Saudi involvement with the attacks has been ignored. As Fahrenheit 9/11's Cannes Film Festival debut approached, marking only the second time in 48 years that a documentary has been included among the festival's main competition, Miramax's parent company Disney announced it would not be distributing the film due to its partisan nature, and, according to Moore, out of trepidation that the Florida-based Goliath's multi-million-dollar tax breaks might be negatively affected by Florida Governor Jeb Bush, whose review within Fahrenheit 9/11 is less than favorable. ~ Tracie Cooper, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 44
Number of Lists: 45
Number of blog posts: 16
Number of discussion threads: 6
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 26 May 2009 16:49:50 GMTFahrenheit 9/112004Michael MooreDirected by <a href="/players/P___103383/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Michael Moore</a>, whose aura of controversy only grew after his Oscar acceptance speech at the 2003 Academy Awards, Fahrenheit 9/11, like Moore's <a href=/films/207197/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Bowling For Columbine</a> and Roger & Me, promises to expose the corporate wrongdoings and big-money scandals perpetrated by America's financial elite. This movie, however, looks beyond the inner echelons of General Motors and Lockheed Martin in hopes of outing the evildoers in the White House, particularly in regards to the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush. In addition to criticizing the administration's handling of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, Moore digs deep into the surprising relationship with the Bin Laden family held by both Bush administrations, and questions whether or not potential Saudi involvement with the attacks has been ignored. As Fahrenheit 9/11's Cannes Film Festival debut approached, marking only the second time in 48 years that a documentary has been included among the festival's main competition, Miramax's parent company Disney announced it would not be distributing the film due to its partisan nature, and, according to Moore, out of trepidation that the Florida-based Goliath's multi-million-dollar tax breaks might be negatively affected by Florida Governor Jeb Bush, whose review within Fahrenheit 9/11 is less than favorable. ~ Tracie Cooper, All Movie Guide44Tag Target (>10)451663http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u41415myvhh.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Fahrenheit_9_11/244442/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Polls/What_is_your_favorite_Palme_d_Or_winner_from_the_l/657/42409/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Movie Polls
Post Date: 5/26/2009 12:49:50 PM
Body: Please reference this thread for the rules of this group. Thanks to tadiv for suggesting this one. - "In recognition of the Cannes Film Festival, what is your favorite Palme d'Or film from the last 6 years?" Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:4 luni, 3 saptamâni si 2 zile (4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days)ElephantL'enfant (The Child)Entre les murs (The Class)Fahrenheit 9/11The Wind That Shakes the Barley
]]>Tue, 26 May 2009 16:49:50 GMTRisseladaMovie Polls5/26/2009 12:49:50 PMPlease reference this thread for the rules of this group. Thanks to tadiv for suggesting this one. - "In recognition of the Cannes Film Festival, what is your favorite Palme d'Or film from the last 6 years?" Please vote only once in each poll. Movies referenced in this poll:4 luni, 3 saptam&acirc;ni si 2 zile (4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days)ElephantL'enfant (The Child)Entre les murs (The Class)Fahrenheit 9/11The Wind That Shakes the Barley http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/17/37380.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/17/2008 5:00:58 PM
Body: Oprah Winfrey can certainly create a best seller when it comes to books, and her pick of the presidential candidates is on his way to the White House. But can she get behind a movie and contribute to its success? 20th Century Fox seems to hope so, because the studio apparently allowed the talk show host to screen an unfinished cut of Australia in preparation for her November 10 show, which featured the film’s stars, Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, as well as a live-via-Skype call-in from filmmaker Baz Luhrman. Fortunately for Fox, Oprah raved about the film, and now the media has latched on to the endorsement, creating some much-needed positive buzz for the Oscar-hopeful. Yet there’s a big problem with all the excitement: Oprah’s film recommendations have hardly been sure-fire champs in the past. Case in point: the first title I came upon while searching for Oprah-select cinema was something called Christmas in the Clouds, a 2005 indie that she chose as her “must see holiday movie,” in O magazine a few years back. The film barely grossed a quarter-million dollars in theaters, but even if her endorsement didn’t occur until its DVD release in November 2006, there’s still no proof of popularity from the rental charts of the time, and two years later fewer than 250 people have rated it on IMDb (not the best for determining how many people have seen it, sure, but such a small number of votes is still somewhat revealing). As for awards recognition, well, it received the Audience Award at the 2001 Austin Film Festival, and it was named the best Native American-themed film the same year at the Santa Fe Film Festival, but the majority of Academy voters probably never even heard of it. Okay, so that is an extreme example of a film that had not even one percent of the marketing budget of Australia. So, let’s take a look at some of the bigger releases that Oprah has recommended more recently. Well, there is Michael Moore’s Sicko, which she labeled “the one movie you must see this summer,” a few weeks prior to its barely wide release in June 2007. Considering its theater count and its genre, the documentary’s final domestic gross of $24.5 million was quite an achievement, especially since only two other docs have grossed more (including Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which will stay on top for quite awhile with its $119.1 million). Oh, and yes, Sicko earned an Oscar nomination, too. But did Oprah’s statement really have that much impact on Sicko’s success? What about all the other titles with Oprah connections that haven’t performed so well? Films based on her book club selections, from her inaugural title, The Deep End of the Ocean, to the recent adaptation of Love in the Time of Cholera, have rarely been blockbusters, and the three Academy nominations for House of Sand and Fog are hardly thanks to her love for and endorsement of that novel. Of course, film adaptations are not necessarily ever pegged to the praises of their source material, which is why Oprah’s name has not been linked to the expected Oscar contenders The Reader and The Road. Then there are the films she’s been directly involved with. Beloved, which she produced and starred in, earned a middling gross of $22.9 million. Its sole Oscar nomination was for costume design. Her more recent production, The Great Debaters, did a little better money-wise with $30.2 million, but it failed to garner the Academy’s attention. Ignoring the animated films she’s lent her voice to, you have to go back 23 years, long before she had the powers of influence she’s currently known for, to find something as big as Fox would like Australia to be. It was then that The Color Purple earned nearly $100 million and 11 Oscar nominations (none of which it won). As for films that Oprah simply promotes and recommends on her show, there is no clear certainty that she can influence either box office or the Oscars. She’s featured the casts from Crash and Brokeback Mountain, yet she’s also given time to publicize films like Alexander and Things We Lost in the Fire. Last week, after calling Australia “the film we needed to see,” she also helped to sell Marley & Me, a movie that might benefit slightly in increased ticket sales thanks to the appearances by Jennifer Aniston, yet there are no news reports mentioning anything but Aniston’s comments about her ex-husband. There’s likewise little media attention given to the fact that Oprah also apparently saw Seven Pounds, the Will Smith movie that, like Australia, has so far received no reviews. Was there no soundbite from Smith’s appearance earlier this month? Seven Pounds is also a mysterious Oscar contender with some needed positive buzz, though maybe Sony Pictures didn’t think to feed the press anything regarding Oprah’s connection to that film the way Fox has pushed them on the Australia endorsement. And what of Oprah’s praise anyway? She said, “I have not been this excited about a movie since I don’t know when.” How excited? And be more specific. Since forty years ago? Since Titanic? Since Christmas in the Clouds? Is this really the best movie of the year? Other than turning the expectations up a little higher following the recent negativity surrounding Australia, Oprah hasn’t really offered us anything except hope. So, a word to Fox: it’s about time you let the real critics see this alleged masterpiece so we can actually find out if this film has some real chances at an Oscar. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:00:58 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/17/2008 5:00:58 PMOprah Winfrey can certainly create a best seller when it comes to books, and her pick of the presidential candidates is on his way to the White House. But can she get behind a movie and contribute to its success? 20th Century Fox seems to hope so, because the studio apparently allowed the talk show host to screen an unfinished cut of Australia in preparation for her November 10 show, which featured the film’s stars, Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, as well as a live-via-Skype call-in from filmmaker Baz Luhrman. Fortunately for Fox, Oprah raved about the film, and now the media has latched on to the endorsement, creating some much-needed positive buzz for the Oscar-hopeful. Yet there’s a big problem with all the excitement: Oprah’s film recommendations have hardly been sure-fire champs in the past. Case in point: the first title I came upon while searching for Oprah-select cinema was something called Christmas in the Clouds, a 2005 indie that she chose as her “must see holiday movie,” in O magazine a few years back. The film barely grossed a quarter-million dollars in theaters, but even if her endorsement didn’t occur until its DVD release in November 2006, there’s still no proof of popularity from the rental charts of the time, and two years later fewer than 250 people have rated it on IMDb (not the best for determining how many people have seen it, sure, but such a small number of votes is still somewhat revealing). As for awards recognition, well, it received the Audience Award at the 2001 Austin Film Festival, and it was named the best Native American-themed film the same year at the Santa Fe Film Festival, but the majority of Academy voters probably never even heard of it. Okay, so that is an extreme example of a film that had not even one percent of the marketing budget of Australia. So, let’s take a look at some of the bigger releases that Oprah has recommended more recently. Well, there is Michael Moore’s Sicko, which she labeled “the one movie you must see this summer,” a few weeks prior to its barely wide release in June 2007. Considering its theater count and its genre, the documentary’s final domestic gross of $24.5 million was quite an achievement, especially since only two other docs have grossed more (including Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which will stay on top for quite awhile with its $119.1 million). Oh, and yes, Sicko earned an Oscar nomination, too. But did Oprah’s statement really have that much impact on Sicko’s success? What about all the other titles with Oprah connections that haven’t performed so well? Films based on her book club selections, from her inaugural title, The Deep End of the Ocean, to the recent adaptation of Love in the Time of Cholera, have rarely been blockbusters, and the three Academy nominations for House of Sand and Fog are hardly thanks to her love for and endorsement of that novel. Of course, film adaptations are not necessarily ever pegged to the praises of their source material, which is why Oprah’s name has not been linked to the expected Oscar contenders The Reader and The Road. Then there are the films she’s been directly involved with. Beloved, which she produced and starred in, earned a middling gross of $22.9 million. Its sole Oscar nomination was for costume design. Her more recent production, The Great Debaters, did a little better money-wise with $30.2 million, but it failed to garner the Academy’s attention. Ignoring the animated films she’s lent her voice to, you have to go back 23 years, long before she had the powers of influence she’s currently known for, to find something as big as Fox would like Australia to be. It was then that The Color Purple earned nearly $100 million and 11 Oscar nominations (none of which it won). As for films that Oprah simply promotes and recommends on her show, there is no clear certainty that she can influence either box office or the Oscars. She’s featured the casts from Crash and Brokeback Mountain, yet she’s also given time to publicize films like Alexander and Things We Lost in the Fire. Last week, after calling Australia “the film we needed to see,” she also helped to sell Marley & Me, a movie that might benefit slightly in increased ticket sales thanks to the appearances by Jennifer Aniston, yet there are no news reports mentioning anything but Aniston’s comments about her ex-husband. There’s likewise little media attention given to the fact that Oprah also apparently saw Seven Pounds, the Will Smith movie that, like Australia, has so far received no reviews. Was there no soundbite from Smith’s appearance earlier this month? Seven Pounds is also a mysterious Oscar contender with some needed positive buzz, though maybe Sony Pictures didn’t think to feed the press anything regarding Oprah’s connection to that film the way Fox has pushed them on the Australia endorsement. And what of Oprah’s praise anyway? She said, “I have not been this excited about a movie since I don’t know when.” How excited? And be more specific. Since forty years ago? Since Titanic? Since Christmas in the Clouds? Is this really the best movie of the year? Other than turning the expectations up a little higher following the recent negativity surrounding Australia, Oprah hasn’t really offered us anything except hope. So, a word to Fox: it’s about time you let the real critics see this alleged masterpiece so we can actually find out if this film has some real chances at an Oscar. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/9/12/35060.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 9/12/2008 12:01:45 PM
Body: Paul Krik’s low-budget indie thriller Able Danger is nicely shot in tinted b&w hi-def video, slickly mixed, scored and edited almost to the point of being indistinguishable from this or that Bruckheimer TV show. And Krik is a keen film student: Many of the film’s images recall Welles, Lang, Fuller, Mann, Kubrick, Frankenheimer– you name it. Hipster-geek lead Adam Nee, as a conspiracy theory blogger convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, shows subtle, offbeat charm. Young film majors curious about how to pull off a polished look on a shoestring may want to check it out. Krik gets a lot of mileage out of color correction software, real Brooklyn locations and one beat-up mountain bike. Most memorably Krik also shows an eye for cute European and American hipster chicks in dark femme fatale dresses, retro skirts and, most memorably, panties. Along with the general flippant air and egghead referentiality, the way Krik’s camera leers at gorgeous white women should earn him faint comparison to Jean-Luc Godard. Elina Löwensohn, as the lead femme, might have stepped out of Alphaville. But the conspiracy crowd Able Danger hopes to entertain and poke affectionate fun at will likely find it a trifling way to re-package the crime of the century. Well, at least I did. The facts and suppositions surrounding 9/11 were more entertainingly dramatized in docs like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Zeitgeist: The Movie. Those films also manage to arouse something along with the mischief that Able Danger never gets around to: a chill down the spine arising from real fear and sorrow. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:01:45 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog9/12/2008 12:01:45 PM Paul Krik’s low-budget indie thriller Able Danger is nicely shot in tinted b&w hi-def video, slickly mixed, scored and edited almost to the point of being indistinguishable from this or that Bruckheimer TV show. And Krik is a keen film student: Many of the film’s images recall Welles, Lang, Fuller, Mann, Kubrick, Frankenheimer– you name it. Hipster-geek lead Adam Nee, as a conspiracy theory blogger convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, shows subtle, offbeat charm. Young film majors curious about how to pull off a polished look on a shoestring may want to check it out. Krik gets a lot of mileage out of color correction software, real Brooklyn locations and one beat-up mountain bike. Most memorably Krik also shows an eye for cute European and American hipster chicks in dark femme fatale dresses, retro skirts and, most memorably, panties. Along with the general flippant air and egghead referentiality, the way Krik’s camera leers at gorgeous white women should earn him faint comparison to Jean-Luc Godard. Elina Löwensohn, as the lead femme, might have stepped out of Alphaville. But the conspiracy crowd Able Danger hopes to entertain and poke affectionate fun at will likely find it a trifling way to re-package the crime of the century. Well, at least I did. The facts and suppositions surrounding 9/11 were more entertainingly dramatized in docs like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Zeitgeist: The Movie. Those films also manage to arouse something along with the mischief that Able Danger never gets around to: a chill down the spine arising from real fear and sorrow. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/12/35059.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/12/2008 12:01:35 PM
Body: Paul Krik’s low-budget indie thriller Able Danger is nicely shot in tinted b&w hi-def video, slickly mixed, scored and edited almost to the point of being indistinguishable from this or that Bruckheimer TV show. And Krik is a keen film student: Many of the film’s images recall Welles, Lang, Fuller, Mann, Kubrick, Frankenheimer– you name it. Hipster-geek lead Adam Nee, as a conspiracy theory blogger convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, shows subtle, offbeat charm. Young film majors curious about how to pull off a polished look on a shoestring may want to check it out. Krik gets a lot of mileage out of color correction software, real Brooklyn locations and one beat-up mountain bike. Most memorably Krik also shows an eye for cute European and American hipster chicks in dark femme fatale dresses, retro skirts and, most memorably, panties. Along with the general flippant air and egghead referentiality, the way Krik’s camera leers at gorgeous white women should earn him faint comparison to Jean-Luc Godard. Elina Löwensohn, as the lead femme, might have stepped out of Alphaville. But the conspiracy crowd Able Danger hopes to entertain and poke affectionate fun at will likely find it a trifling way to re-package the crime of the century. Well, at least I did. The facts and suppositions surrounding 9/11 were more entertainingly dramatized in docs like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Zeitgeist: The Movie. Those films also manage to arouse something along with the mischief that Able Danger never gets around to: a chill down the spine arising from real fear and sorrow. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:01:35 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/12/2008 12:01:35 PM Paul Krik’s low-budget indie thriller Able Danger is nicely shot in tinted b&w hi-def video, slickly mixed, scored and edited almost to the point of being indistinguishable from this or that Bruckheimer TV show. And Krik is a keen film student: Many of the film’s images recall Welles, Lang, Fuller, Mann, Kubrick, Frankenheimer– you name it. Hipster-geek lead Adam Nee, as a conspiracy theory blogger convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, shows subtle, offbeat charm. Young film majors curious about how to pull off a polished look on a shoestring may want to check it out. Krik gets a lot of mileage out of color correction software, real Brooklyn locations and one beat-up mountain bike. Most memorably Krik also shows an eye for cute European and American hipster chicks in dark femme fatale dresses, retro skirts and, most memorably, panties. Along with the general flippant air and egghead referentiality, the way Krik’s camera leers at gorgeous white women should earn him faint comparison to Jean-Luc Godard. Elina Löwensohn, as the lead femme, might have stepped out of Alphaville. But the conspiracy crowd Able Danger hopes to entertain and poke affectionate fun at will likely find it a trifling way to re-package the crime of the century. Well, at least I did. The facts and suppositions surrounding 9/11 were more entertainingly dramatized in docs like Fahrenheit 9/11 and Zeitgeist: The Movie. Those films also manage to arouse something along with the mischief that Able Danger never gets around to: a chill down the spine arising from real fear and sorrow. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/9/30944.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/9/2008 12:57:08 PM
Body: Release Year: 2004Director: Michael Moore*****Michael Moore's 2004 Oscar winning documentary, ostensibly about the links between the Bush family and the bin Landen's, is something people on both sides of the aisle should see. The information Moore brings to the surface was barely reported on by any mainstream news outlet. (For instance, the US government was in bed with the Taliban for two decades before September 11...and the government arranged the travel needs of bin Laden family member on 9/11 to Saudi Arabia.)What holds this film from being a true work of genius is Moore's insatiable need to pick, prod and beat the president up at every opportunity. Any documentary filmmaker knows that, in order to be taken seriously, you must be impartial. Examine the issue from all sides, don't let your personal politics come through. Even and balanced. Fair. From the very instant Fahrenheit 9/11 begins with a quick history lesson on the presidential elections of 2000, it's obvious there will be no air of equality here. Moore is out for blood. Personal politics aside, is that really the best way to bring information to light? No, because it turns off a large segment of the population who, if they watched the film, might change their opinions.Moore's research, it should be said, is impeccable. Regardless of anything else he could be pigeonholed for, he did not want to be told his information was faulty. Using a combination of interviews, news clips and archive footage, almost everything in the film is documented. If there is one place the narrative turns a bit circumspect, it is early on when the director hypothesizes what President Bush was thinking about sitting in the schoolroom when the towers were hit. There is no way we will ever know what went through the president's mind; to put words into his head is irresponsible.Did Moore use clips of soldiers bashing the Iraq invasion without their consent? I don't know. Again, this is something we'll never know. What we can say with certainty is this: Fahrenheit 9/11 gets the audience from Point A to Point B, outlining every relevant fact we should know in order for us to draw our own conclusions. The Bush lineage in Texas is traced, straight through the 2000 elections, followed by September 11 and the beginning (and "Mission Accomplished" Photo Op) of the Iraq Invasion. Moore goes for sentimentality by introducing us to a woman in Flint, Michigan, who lost her son in the military. By and large, the emotional thread works. It is necessary for a film like this to engage the emotions; but was it really necessary? Not completely, and a valid case can be made against this part of the film.Fahrenheit 9/11 rightly won the Academy Award for Best Documentary. Just imagine, though, for a moment the impact this film could have had if it had a History Channel objectivity instead of a partisan slant.
]]>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:57:08 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/9/2008 12:57:08 PMRelease Year: 2004Director: Michael Moore*****Michael Moore's 2004 Oscar winning documentary, ostensibly about the links between the Bush family and the bin Landen's, is something people on both sides of the aisle should see. The information Moore brings to the surface was barely reported on by any mainstream news outlet. (For instance, the US government was in bed with the Taliban for two decades before September 11...and the government arranged the travel needs of bin Laden family member on 9/11 to Saudi Arabia.)What holds this film from being a true work of genius is Moore's insatiable need to pick, prod and beat the president up at every opportunity. Any documentary filmmaker knows that, in order to be taken seriously, you must be impartial. Examine the issue from all sides, don't let your personal politics come through. Even and balanced. Fair. From the very instant Fahrenheit 9/11 begins with a quick history lesson on the presidential elections of 2000, it's obvious there will be no air of equality here. Moore is out for blood. Personal politics aside, is that really the best way to bring information to light? No, because it turns off a large segment of the population who, if they watched the film, might change their opinions.Moore's research, it should be said, is impeccable. Regardless of anything else he could be pigeonholed for, he did not want to be told his information was faulty. Using a combination of interviews, news clips and archive footage, almost everything in the film is documented. If there is one place the narrative turns a bit circumspect, it is early on when the director hypothesizes what President Bush was thinking about sitting in the schoolroom when the towers were hit. There is no way we will ever know what went through the president's mind; to put words into his head is irresponsible.Did Moore use clips of soldiers bashing the Iraq invasion without their consent? I don't know. Again, this is something we'll never know. What we can say with certainty is this: Fahrenheit 9/11 gets the audience from Point A to Point B, outlining every relevant fact we should know in order for us to draw our own conclusions. The Bush lineage in Texas is traced, straight through the 2000 elections, followed by September 11 and the beginning (and "Mission Accomplished" Photo Op) of the Iraq Invasion. Moore goes for sentimentality by introducing us to a woman in Flint, Michigan, who lost her son in the military. By and large, the emotional thread works. It is necessary for a film like this to engage the emotions; but was it really necessary? Not completely, and a valid case can be made against this part of the film.Fahrenheit 9/11 rightly won the Academy Award for Best Documentary. Just imagine, though, for a moment the impact this film could have had if it had a History Channel objectivity instead of a partisan slant. http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/14/29126.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/14/2008 1:17:29 AM
Body: Yes, I know that I am the last person in the known galaxy to see this movie. I put off seeing it for a bunch of reasons, one of which was that Moore's comments about how that it could turn the eleciton seemed obnoxious and pretencious. It had no apparerent effect and seen just one and half years after it was made it seems dated. Any review of a film like this is going to be biased by the veiwer's political beliefs. Let me say now that I voted for Kerry, am a loyal partison Democrat and think that Bush is the second worst President in our nation's history, right behind James Buchanan. I cannot wait for my birthday on 2009 when someone else will be President. Even if it's another Republican, I can't imagine one worse then George W. That said, onto the film. I agree with Moore's statement that the administration blew nearly every aspect of the Iraq war. They mislead the public about the danger and had no plan to reconstruct Iraq. I have no idea what the motive really was behind the conflict. It could have been some Wilsonian idea to transform the Middle East, or oil, or both. Maybe Little George was trying to tie up some unfinished business of daddy's. But I do not agree with Moore's implicit assumption that everything in Iraq was peachy keen before the invasion. Saddum Hussien was a tyrant, a horrible leader and the Iraqi people had no political freedom. And implicit arguments is the problem with the movie. Moore does not really lie in the film (though there is one blantant mistatement where says Saddum never threatened America, actually, he tried to assassinate Bush's father, and in response President Clinton launched a SCUD missle into the country). He simply uses the truth selectivley. He also takes true statements and blows them out of purportion. A great deal is made from the fact of a document that the White House realeased regardign Bush's National Guard service, where the administration blacked a name. It turns out that the name was blacked out because a law prevented it's realease. The copy that Moore obtained was made before the law was passed. And think about it- even if Bush and the guy, James R. Bath, were friends who later ran oil businesses- big deal, that was public knowledge anyway. Moore creates a conspiracy where none probably existed, and would be of little consequence if one did. Also much is made about the heavily objectionable ties between the Bush dynasty and the Saudi royal family. He is correct in pointing out that there is a major conflict of interest here, but what does this have do with Iraq? There may be a problem but the film doesn't present it, just uses creepy music to create an unsettling tone. I am not defending Bush here. But I do think that Bush can be condemmed by simply looking what has become public knowlege. Moore never dragged up anything shocking or groundbreaking in this film. Moore's arrogence keeps getting in the way of his political argument (Hey-look at MEEEE!!!!!). The movie uneasily jumps between the very serious issues discussed and lighter comedic scenes. The mesh doesn't work. The film is most effective towards the end, when we see the devestating impact of the death of an Iraq soldier. In the last letter he wrote to his parents before he was killed, he realized that the war was pointless and condemned Bush. The mother is shaken to the core because the tragedity is multiplied- her son is dead, and he died for absolutley nothing, and a government she trusted lied to her. The goverment does manage to remember to dock the soldier's last paycheck, sent to the parents, for the days he didn't work- "because he was dead". Fahrenheit 9/11 might have actually had the intended effect if it was made by a more trustworthy source, in a less inflammatory manner. Or maybe not. Maybe the Americans who voted for Bush were too naive to have any film sway them. Regardless, I couldn't help but think of Frank Capra's propaganda masterpiece Why We Fight- which works because it's filmmaking zeal, like this one, but also because it is 100% true. However, I must say that this is an entertaining movie. It's not boring, it held my interest. I reccamend it on that level. I agree with the film's ends, but not the means. And it would probably be ***1/2 if Moore would just shut the f**k up. Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
]]>Wed, 14 May 2008 05:17:29 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/14/2008 1:17:29 AMYes, I know that I am the last person in the known galaxy to see this movie. I put off seeing it for a bunch of reasons, one of which was that Moore's comments about how that it could turn the eleciton seemed obnoxious and pretencious. It had no apparerent effect and seen just one and half years after it was made it seems dated. Any review of a film like this is going to be biased by the veiwer's political beliefs. Let me say now that I voted for Kerry, am a loyal partison Democrat and think that Bush is the second worst President in our nation's history, right behind James Buchanan. I cannot wait for my birthday on 2009 when someone else will be President. Even if it's another Republican, I can't imagine one worse then George W. That said, onto the film. I agree with Moore's statement that the administration blew nearly every aspect of the Iraq war. They mislead the public about the danger and had no plan to reconstruct Iraq. I have no idea what the motive really was behind the conflict. It could have been some Wilsonian idea to transform the Middle East, or oil, or both. Maybe Little George was trying to tie up some unfinished business of daddy's. But I do not agree with Moore's implicit assumption that everything in Iraq was peachy keen before the invasion. Saddum Hussien was a tyrant, a horrible leader and the Iraqi people had no political freedom. And implicit arguments is the problem with the movie. Moore does not really lie in the film (though there is one blantant mistatement where says Saddum never threatened America, actually, he tried to assassinate Bush's father, and in response President Clinton launched a SCUD missle into the country). He simply uses the truth selectivley. He also takes true statements and blows them out of purportion. A great deal is made from the fact of a document that the White House realeased regardign Bush's National Guard service, where the administration blacked a name. It turns out that the name was blacked out because a law prevented it's realease. The copy that Moore obtained was made before the law was passed. And think about it- even if Bush and the guy, James R. Bath, were friends who later ran oil businesses- big deal, that was public knowledge anyway. Moore creates a conspiracy where none probably existed, and would be of little consequence if one did. Also much is made about the heavily objectionable ties between the Bush dynasty and the Saudi royal family. He is correct in pointing out that there is a major conflict of interest here, but what does this have do with Iraq? There may be a problem but the film doesn't present it, just uses creepy music to create an unsettling tone. I am not defending Bush here. But I do think that Bush can be condemmed by simply looking what has become public knowlege. Moore never dragged up anything shocking or groundbreaking in this film. Moore's arrogence keeps getting in the way of his political argument (Hey-look at MEEEE!!!!!). The movie uneasily jumps between the very serious issues discussed and lighter comedic scenes. The mesh doesn't work. The film is most effective towards the end, when we see the devestating impact of the death of an Iraq soldier. In the last letter he wrote to his parents before he was killed, he realized that the war was pointless and condemned Bush. The mother is shaken to the core because the tragedity is multiplied- her son is dead, and he died for absolutley nothing, and a government she trusted lied to her. The goverment does manage to remember to dock the soldier's last paycheck, sent to the parents, for the days he didn't work- "because he was dead". Fahrenheit 9/11 might have actually had the intended effect if it was made by a more trustworthy source, in a less inflammatory manner. Or maybe not. Maybe the Americans who voted for Bush were too naive to have any film sway them. Regardless, I couldn't help but think of Frank Capra's propaganda masterpiece Why We Fight- which works because it's filmmaking zeal, like this one, but also because it is 100% true. However, I must say that this is an entertaining movie. It's not boring, it held my interest. I reccamend it on that level. I agree with the film's ends, but not the means. And it would probably be ***1/2 if Moore would just shut the f**k up. Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/5/13/28953.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 5/13/2008 5:01:29 PM
Body: Blogs are buzzing, but the fact that Michael Moore is making a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 is old news –– the film is referenced in this NY Times story from April of last year. The new news in this story from Variety’s Cannes section is that the film will be distributed internationally by Overture and Paramount Vantage––NOT The Weinstein Company, which handled the relatively disappointing release of Sicko. The same companies will rep the doc for international sale at Cannes. The Playlist has details on Miranda July’s in-the-works second feature, Things We Don’t Understand and Definitely Are Not Going To Talk About. The title of this post at Tisch Film Review is worded a bit confusingly, but it’s basically a list of ten great films that are not available on DVD. The Last Movie, The Mother and the Whore, etc. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 21:01:29 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog5/13/2008 5:01:29 PM Blogs are buzzing, but the fact that Michael Moore is making a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 is old news –– the film is referenced in this NY Times story from April of last year. The new news in this story from Variety’s Cannes section is that the film will be distributed internationally by Overture and Paramount Vantage––NOT The Weinstein Company, which handled the relatively disappointing release of Sicko. The same companies will rep the doc for international sale at Cannes. The Playlist has details on Miranda July’s in-the-works second feature, Things We Don’t Understand and Definitely Are Not Going To Talk About. The title of this post at Tisch Film Review is worded a bit confusingly, but it’s basically a list of ten great films that are not available on DVD. The Last Movie, The Mother and the Whore, etc. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » Karina Longworth http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/5/13/28952.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 5/13/2008 5:01:18 PM
Body: Blogs are buzzing, but the fact that Michael Moore is making a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 is old news –– the film is referenced in this NY Times story from April of last year. The new news in this story from Variety’s Cannes section is that the film will be distributed internationally by Overture and Paramount Vantage––NOT The Weinstein Company, which handled the relatively disappointing release of Sicko. The same companies will rep the doc for international sale at Cannes. The Playlist has details on Miranda July’s in-the-works second feature, Things We Don’t Understand and Definitely Are Not Going To Talk About. The title of this post at Tisch Film Review is worded a bit confusingly, but it’s basically a list of ten great films that are not available on DVD. The Last Movie, The Mother and the Whore, etc. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 13 May 2008 21:01:18 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com5/13/2008 5:01:18 PM Blogs are buzzing, but the fact that Michael Moore is making a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 is old news –– the film is referenced in this NY Times story from April of last year. The new news in this story from Variety’s Cannes section is that the film will be distributed internationally by Overture and Paramount Vantage––NOT The Weinstein Company, which handled the relatively disappointing release of Sicko. The same companies will rep the doc for international sale at Cannes. The Playlist has details on Miranda July’s in-the-works second feature, Things We Don’t Understand and Definitely Are Not Going To Talk About. The title of this post at Tisch Film Review is worded a bit confusingly, but it’s basically a list of ten great films that are not available on DVD. The Last Movie, The Mother and the Whore, etc. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/thefilmpanelnotetaker/archive/2008/3/3/25815.aspx Post By: thefilmpanelnotetaker
Post To: thefilmpanelnotetaker Blog
Post Date: 3/3/2008 2:00:54 PM
Body: A Tribute to St. Clair BourneMuseum of the Moving Image – Astoria, NYFebruary 10, 2008(L to R: Armond White, Esther Iverem, Warrington Hudlin, George Alexander, Clyde Taylor and David Schwartz)(Filmmaker Melvin Van Peebles in the audience)At the Museum of the Moving Image on Sunday, critics and scholars were in person to discuss the career of and show clips from documentary filmmaker St. Clair Bourne, who died in December 2007, and made more than 40 films, mainly about African-American culture and politics. His subjects included Paul Robeson, John Henrik Clarke, Gordon Parks, Langston Hughes, and Making of Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing. The discussion was organized and moderated by Warrington Hudlin producer of such films as House Party and Boomerang, and the founder of DV Republic.The panelists included Clyde Taylor, professor at the Gallatin School and writer for the PBS documentary, Midnight Ramble: The Life and Legacy of Oscar Micheaux; George Alexander - business entertainment columnist at Black Enterprise magazine and author of Why We Make Movies; Esther Iverem, journalist, poet and author of The Time: Portrait of a Journey Home; Armond White , film critic at New York Press and author of The Resistance: Ten Years of Pop Culture That Shook the World and Rebel for the Hell of It: The Art-Life of Tupac Shakur.The Museum’s David Schwartz opened the presentation by remarking that Hudlin had the idea to do this tribute to Bourne, who was a prolific filmmaker. Schwartz thanked Hudlin for arranging the tribute and said that Hudlin would someday get a tribute of his own. Hudlin joked, “When I’m alive!” Schwartz continued by saying that this would be one of the last programs at the Museum before it undergoes construction at the end of the month.He then introduced Nonso Christian Ugbode of the Black Documentary Collective, who presented a short clip montage that he cut himself of Bourne’s work. Afterwards, the panelists each presented clips from a selection of Bourne’s films.Clips Presentation:Clyde Taylor (CT) - Clip from Let the Church Say Amen (1974)Taylor said he chose this clip because it was a breakthrough film for Bourne and was made at the point when they got to know one another. Bourne had created his own production company at the time. This film became his ID or calling card. Taylor initiated an African-American film society in San Francisco and invited Bourne to show his film there. They became close friends. This clip is one that reflects a cinema verité style of filmmaking that follows a young seminary student, showing the connection between religion and the black experience.George Alexander (GA) – Clip from Langston Hughes: The Dreamkeeper (1988)Alexander said that Bourne was a generous and giving soul. He got to know him during the centennial birthday celebration of Langston Hughes at the Museum of Natural History. Alexander didn’t know Bourne too well at the time, but knew his work. Alexander worked on Bourne’s book and viewed all his films, and got to know him very well and they became good friends. This clip shows the idea of cultural authenticity, which is the notion that the subject of the documentary was talked about. If you do work about a community, you also have to show the social context.Esther Iverem (EI)– Clip from Making ‘Do the Right Thing' (1989)Iverem said as a young journalist, she was very impressed by the use of journalism on screen in Bourne’s films. She respects real stories a lot more than most narrative films she has to review. She had corresponded with Bourne through email. He was very active with the online community. When he was going through issues with his health, he was still interested in helping other people with their careers. This clip combines so many of his interests and emphases like social activism. It captures so much of what was happening in New York City in the 1980s.Armond White (AW)– Clip from John Henrik Clarke: A Great and Mighty Walk (1996)White said he met Bourne in the 1980s when he was an editor for the New York City Sun. He went to Bourne’s Upper West Side apartment for an interview. Bourne was a very principled and humane person. He didn’t talk like other filmmakers. He came from a family of journalists. It was the journalism aspect Bourne brought to filmmaking that made him special. White showed two clips. The first was the opening sequence of the film. He said this clip helps to show that movies don’t fall out of the sky. People collaborate with one another. The montage gives a sense of Bourne’s style. This is a film of self-identification. Bourne reflected on his own life as a filmmaker and as a n African-American. The second clip is of John Henrik Clarke sitting in a leather chair in a room with books and African sculptures. It evokes a professor’s office or a middle-class family’s den, like that of on TV’s “Father Knows Best.” This documentary has a rich, story-like quality. One of the only Bourne films that is in distribution.Panel Discussion and Audience Q&AHudlin then opened the panel discussion, a mix between his own questions to the panelists and also comments and questions from the audience. [FYI, among those in the audience was filmmaker Melvin Van Peebles, whose Sweet Sweetback’s Badasssss Song was a pioneering African-American independent film of the early 1970s.](WH) How long had you known Bourne?(CT) Since 1976. It was an important moment for black independent cinema, but documentaries were happening as well from such people as William Greaves. Bourne kept that leadership with the Black Documentary Collective.(WH) What were some of the choices he made with his documentaries?(CT) He was committed to handheld cinema verité. No narrator. More personal and intimate. In later years, he got better funded. Archival footage is very expensive. In the later years, he made films of people with profiles of greatness such as Paul Robeson, but he was not the ‘PBSification’ mode.(WH) When you interviewed Bourne for your book, did he talk about any challenges?(GA) He talked about how independent film was about to change. Up until Spike Lee, documentary filmmakers were making films about real life. The Spike Lee made narrative films that were entertaining in a realistic way. For John Henrik Clarke: A Great and Mighty Walk, he employed an MTV editor using quick cuts. In terms of getting funding, frequently people who controlled the money had little experience with African-American stories. Filmmaker Julie Dash talked about the same struggle to incorporate realistic elements. It was always challenging.(WH) In your book We Got to Have It, you talk about the consumer’s appetite. How are African Americans responding to documentaries?(EI) Can’t say that there has been an explosion in our documentaries and African Americans responding to them. What audiences are going to see versus quality of the films is a different thing. In recent years, filmmakers like Michael Moore get a lot of credit for documentaries being played in theaters. A lot of times, these films aren’t made by black filmmakers.(WH) Are there any advantages or disadvantages to fiction vs. non-fiction films?(AW) It’s a choice. You take a risk of not interesting an audience. Most movie goers aren’t interested in documentaries. Bourne took a risk because documentaries tell things to audiences that fiction cannot. I wouldn’t put him in the same sentence as Michael Moore. Moore degraded documentary filmmaking. Bourne believed in the truth of history.(WH) Will anyone defend Michael Moore? He and I are personal friends. When he sold Roger & Me for $4 million, he called me and asked if I needed some money. Fahrenheit 9/11 is the only documentary that has reached blockbuster status.(GA) Moore is aware that audiences evolve. People want to see something that entices them.(AW) Moore has changed the form. Popular films aim to entertain more than to inform. His films are aimed toward a particular political mindset. Bourne didn’t play around with the truth or history.(EI) Bourne had integrity, but we don’t have to honor that by throwing someone else under the bus. It doesn’t mean that Moore isn’t sticking to the facts. Just because he uses those techniques, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have integrity.(Audience Comment) I worked with Bourne and he wouldn’t want us knocking down filmmakers like Moore.(Audience Question) I am amazed and appalled that only one of Bourne’s movies is in distribution. What can we do about it? How do we get his films into circulation so future generations can see his work?(CT) There’s a movement out there to get his films in a box set. Something is in the works.(Audience Question) Was Bourne working on anything up to his death?(CT) A project about the Black Panthers. He got some extraordinary interviews. He also wanted to have a book done on his photos.(EI) He was also developing some fiction narratives. Might depend on who owns the actual rights to his work.(Audience Comment) The Black Documentary Collective will catalog his work.(Audience Question) Why wasn’t a clip from Half-Past Autumn: The Life and Works of Gordon Parks shown?(EI) I would have chosen that clip to screen, but Bourne was the producer, and not the director of that and the Museum chose to screen just clips from films he directed. Half-Past Autumn was on HBO. It was one of his films where he was able to break through the ceiling.(GA) It still fits his desire to chronicle important black people in history who made enormous contributions to African-American culture.(WH) Bourne created the Black Documentary Collective. He created an infrastructure that survives him. The institution he left behind didn’t die away. What is the Collective doing these days?(BCD Representative) We meet the first Monday of every month. We have rough-cut screenings and panel discussions.Towards the end of the discussion, Melvin Van Peebles stood up and said, “I’m clairvoyant!” Bourne knew the problems that he wanted the public to understand. He would have wanted filmmakers to continue to educate the audience. To push forward. Keep on fighting. Hudlin reminded Van Peebles of a button he once gave him that’s a circle with a line through it that means, “No Whining, Keep Working.” Van Peebles said he just made a new feature. At the end of the shoot, he was on his knees scrubbing the floor. “You got to do the whole thing,” he said. “I do any G-d damn thing necessary!”- Notes by The Film Panel Notetaker Originally posted on:The Film Panel Notetaker - Miss a panel discussion? Don't worry! We took notes for you.
]]>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:00:54 GMTthefilmpanelnotetakerthefilmpanelnotetaker Blog3/3/2008 2:00:54 PMA Tribute to St. Clair BourneMuseum of the Moving Image – Astoria, NYFebruary 10, 2008(L to R: Armond White, Esther Iverem, Warrington Hudlin, George Alexander, Clyde Taylor and David Schwartz)(Filmmaker Melvin Van Peebles in the audience)At the Museum of the Moving Image on Sunday, critics and scholars were in person to discuss the career of and show clips from documentary filmmaker St. Clair Bourne, who died in December 2007, and made more than 40 films, mainly about African-American culture and politics. His subjects included Paul Robeson, John Henrik Clarke, Gordon Parks, Langston Hughes, and Making of Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing. The discussion was organized and moderated by Warrington Hudlin producer of such films as House Party and Boomerang, and the founder of DV Republic.The panelists included Clyde Taylor, professor at the Gallatin School and writer for the PBS documentary, Midnight Ramble: The Life and Legacy of Oscar Micheaux; George Alexander - business entertainment columnist at Black Enterprise magazine and author of Why We Make Movies; Esther Iverem, journalist, poet and author of The Time: Portrait of a Journey Home; Armond White , film critic at New York Press and author of The Resistance: Ten Years of Pop Culture That Shook the World and Rebel for the Hell of It: The Art-Life of Tupac Shakur.The Museum’s David Schwartz opened the presentation by remarking that Hudlin had the idea to do this tribute to Bourne, who was a prolific filmmaker. Schwartz thanked Hudlin for arranging the tribute and said that Hudlin would someday get a tribute of his own. Hudlin joked, “When I’m alive!” Schwartz continued by saying that this would be one of the last programs at the Museum before it undergoes construction at the end of the month.He then introduced Nonso Christian Ugbode of the Black Documentary Collective, who presented a short clip montage that he cut himself of Bourne’s work. Afterwards, the panelists each presented clips from a selection of Bourne’s films.Clips Presentation:Clyde Taylor (CT) - Clip from Let the Church Say Amen (1974)Taylor said he chose this clip because it was a breakthrough film for Bourne and was made at the point when they got to know one another. Bourne had created his own production company at the time. This film became his ID or calling card. Taylor initiated an African-American film society in San Francisco and invited Bourne to show his film there. They became close friends. This clip is one that reflects a cinema verité style of filmmaking that follows a young seminary student, showing the connection between religion and the black experience.George Alexander (GA) – Clip from Langston Hughes: The Dreamkeeper (1988)Alexander said that Bourne was a generous and giving soul. He got to know him during the centennial birthday celebration of Langston Hughes at the Museum of Natural History. Alexander didn’t know Bourne too well at the time, but knew his work. Alexander worked on Bourne’s book and viewed all his films, and got to know him very well and they became good friends. This clip shows the idea of cultural authenticity, which is the notion that the subject of the documentary was talked about. If you do work about a community, you also have to show the social context.Esther Iverem (EI)– Clip from Making ‘Do the Right Thing' (1989)Iverem said as a young journalist, she was very impressed by the use of journalism on screen in Bourne’s films. She respects real stories a lot more than most narrative films she has to review. She had corresponded with Bourne through email. He was very active with the online community. When he was going through issues with his health, he was still interested in helping other people with their careers. This clip combines so many of his interests and emphases like social activism. It captures so much of what was happening in New York City in the 1980s.Armond White (AW)– Clip from John Henrik Clarke: A Great and Mighty Walk (1996)White said he met Bourne in the 1980s when he was an editor for the New York City Sun. He went to Bourne’s Upper West Side apartment for an interview. Bourne was a very principled and humane person. He didn’t talk like other filmmakers. He came from a family of journalists. It was the journalism aspect Bourne brought to filmmaking that made him special. White showed two clips. The first was the opening sequence of the film. He said this clip helps to show that movies don’t fall out of the sky. People collaborate with one another. The montage gives a sense of Bourne’s style. This is a film of self-identification. Bourne reflected on his own life as a filmmaker and as a n African-American. The second clip is of John Henrik Clarke sitting in a leather chair in a room with books and African sculptures. It evokes a professor’s office or a middle-class family’s den, like that of on TV’s “Father Knows Best.” This documentary has a rich, story-like quality. One of the only Bourne films that is in distribution.Panel Discussion and Audience Q&AHudlin then opened the panel discussion, a mix between his own questions to the panelists and also comments and questions from the audience. [FYI, among those in the audience was filmmaker Melvin Van Peebles, whose Sweet Sweetback’s Badasssss Song was a pioneering African-American independent film of the early 1970s.](WH) How long had you known Bourne?(CT) Since 1976. It was an important moment for black independent cinema, but documentaries were happening as well from such people as William Greaves. Bourne kept that leadership with the Black Documentary Collective.(WH) What were some of the choices he made with his documentaries?(CT) He was committed to handheld cinema verité. No narrator. More personal and intimate. In later years, he got better funded. Archival footage is very expensive. In the later years, he made films of people with profiles of greatness such as Paul Robeson, but he was not the ‘PBSification’ mode.(WH) When you interviewed Bourne for your book, did he talk about any challenges?(GA) He talked about how independent film was about to change. Up until Spike Lee, documentary filmmakers were making films about real life. The Spike Lee made narrative films that were entertaining in a realistic way. For John Henrik Clarke: A Great and Mighty Walk, he employed an MTV editor using quick cuts. In terms of getting funding, frequently people who controlled the money had little experience with African-American stories. Filmmaker Julie Dash talked about the same struggle to incorporate realistic elements. It was always challenging.(WH) In your book We Got to Have It, you talk about the consumer’s appetite. How are African Americans responding to documentaries?(EI) Can’t say that there has been an explosion in our documentaries and African Americans responding to them. What audiences are going to see versus quality of the films is a different thing. In recent years, filmmakers like Michael Moore get a lot of credit for documentaries being played in theaters. A lot of times, these films aren’t made by black filmmakers.(WH) Are there any advantages or disadvantages to fiction vs. non-fiction films?(AW) It’s a choice. You take a risk of not interesting an audience. Most movie goers aren’t interested in documentaries. Bourne took a risk because documentaries tell things to audiences that fiction cannot. I wouldn’t put him in the same sentence as Michael Moore. Moore degraded documentary filmmaking. Bourne believed in the truth of history.(WH) Will anyone defend Michael Moore? He and I are personal friends. When he sold Roger & Me for $4 million, he called me and asked if I needed some money. Fahrenheit 9/11 is the only documentary that has reached blockbuster status.(GA) Moore is aware that audiences evolve. People want to see something that entices them.(AW) Moore has changed the form. Popular films aim to entertain more than to inform. His films are aimed toward a particular political mindset. Bourne didn’t play around with the truth or history.(EI) Bourne had integrity, but we don’t have to honor that by throwing someone else under the bus. It doesn’t mean that Moore isn’t sticking to the facts. Just because he uses those techniques, doesn’t mean he doesn’t have integrity.(Audience Comment) I worked with Bourne and he wouldn’t want us knocking down filmmakers like Moore.(Audience Question) I am amazed and appalled that only one of Bourne’s movies is in distribution. What can we do about it? How do we get his films into circulation so future generations can see his work?(CT) There’s a movement out there to get his films in a box set. Something is in the works.(Audience Question) Was Bourne working on anything up to his death?(CT) A project about the Black Panthers. He got some extraordinary interviews. He also wanted to have a book done on his photos.(EI) He was also developing some fiction narratives. Might depend on who owns the actual rights to his work.(Audience Comment) The Black Documentary Collective will catalog his work.(Audience Question) Why wasn’t a clip from Half-Past Autumn: The Life and Works of Gordon Parks shown?(EI) I would have chosen that clip to screen, but Bourne was the producer, and not the director of that and the Museum chose to screen just clips from films he directed. Half-Past Autumn was on HBO. It was one of his films where he was able to break through the ceiling.(GA) It still fits his desire to chronicle important black people in history who made enormous contributions to African-American culture.(WH) Bourne created the Black Documentary Collective. He created an infrastructure that survives him. The institution he left behind didn’t die away. What is the Collective doing these days?(BCD Representative) We meet the first Monday of every month. We have rough-cut screenings and panel discussions.Towards the end of the discussion, Melvin Van Peebles stood up and said, “I’m clairvoyant!” Bourne knew the problems that he wanted the public to understand. He would have wanted filmmakers to continue to educate the audience. To push forward. Keep on fighting. Hudlin reminded Van Peebles of a button he once gave him that’s a circle with a line through it that means, “No Whining, Keep Working.” Van Peebles said he just made a new feature. At the end of the shoot, he was on his knees scrubbing the floor. “You got to do the whole thing,” he said. “I do any G-d damn thing necessary!”- Notes by The Film Panel Notetaker Originally posted on:The Film Panel Notetaker - Miss a panel discussion? Don't worry! We took notes for you. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/1/23/24277.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/23/2008 7:00:32 PM
Body: Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden is the latest autobiographical odyssey by Super Size Me director Morgan Spurlock. The film has a wry, snarky tone, so while Spurlock actually does tour the Middle East poking around for the world’s most wanted terrorist, the mission is understood to be secondary to the wider political comments the film attempts to make. If the mission to find Bin Laden is tongue-in-cheek, then what is the point of the very real dangers Spurlock subjects himself to? Comparisons to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 are well deserved. Both rely heavily on darkly comic animated history lessons about the underbelly of American foreign policy. These segments are very entertaining, but also frustratingly simple. While it could be argued that Spurlock is intentionally over-simplifying complex histories in order to spoof the mainstream media’s penchant for cartoonish dichotomies, the animated segments instead prop up widely held beliefs with more humor than information. I can already hear undergrads at a party saying, “The CIA did some seriously messed up shit, didn’t you see that 90 second cartoon in that Morgan Spurlock movie?” (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:00:32 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/23/2008 7:00:32 PM Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden is the latest autobiographical odyssey by Super Size Me director Morgan Spurlock. The film has a wry, snarky tone, so while Spurlock actually does tour the Middle East poking around for the world’s most wanted terrorist, the mission is understood to be secondary to the wider political comments the film attempts to make. If the mission to find Bin Laden is tongue-in-cheek, then what is the point of the very real dangers Spurlock subjects himself to? Comparisons to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 are well deserved. Both rely heavily on darkly comic animated history lessons about the underbelly of American foreign policy. These segments are very entertaining, but also frustratingly simple. While it could be argued that Spurlock is intentionally over-simplifying complex histories in order to spoof the mainstream media’s penchant for cartoonish dichotomies, the animated segments instead prop up widely held beliefs with more humor than information. I can already hear undergrads at a party saying, “The CIA did some seriously messed up shit, didn’t you see that 90 second cartoon in that Morgan Spurlock movie?” (more…) Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/war/MemberTagFilms.aspxwar
Number of films tagged: 6177

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 608

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:16:35 GMT6177179608Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/documentary/MemberTagFilms.aspxdocumentary
Number of films tagged: 402

Number of people who tagged: 127

Number of times used: 496

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:11:06 GMT402127496Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverrated
Number of films tagged: 152

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT152106240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/politics/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitics
Number of films tagged: 698

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 194

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT69854194Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/freedom/MemberTagFilms.aspxfreedom
Number of films tagged: 454

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 60

]]>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:55:18 GMT4543860Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/political/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitical
Number of films tagged: 51

Number of people who tagged: 29

Number of times used: 65

]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 20:21:55 GMT512965Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/america/MemberTagFilms.aspxamerica
Number of films tagged: 1215

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 87

]]>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:08:42 GMT12152687Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/propaganda/MemberTagFilms.aspxpropaganda
Number of films tagged: 325

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 28

]]>Wed, 06 May 2009 13:04:03 GMT3252528Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Michael/MemberTagFilms.aspxMichael
Number of films tagged: 9

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 20

]]>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:05:59 GMT91820Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/antiwar/MemberTagFilms.aspxantiwar
Number of films tagged: 182

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 30

]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 13:09:30 GMT1821430Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/shocking/MemberTagFilms.aspxshocking
Number of films tagged: 13

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 14

]]>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:03:36 GMT131214Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/michaelmoore/MemberTagFilms.aspxmichaelmoore
Number of films tagged: 5

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 10

]]>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 05:25:05 GMT5910Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/important/MemberTagFilms.aspximportant
Number of films tagged: 22

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 23

]]>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 07:08:27 GMT22823Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/extreme/MemberTagFilms.aspxextreme
Number of films tagged: 9

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 9

]]>Fri, 07 Nov 2008 01:04:20 GMT979Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/eye-opening/MemberTagFilms.aspxeye-opening
Number of films tagged: 6

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 6

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:45:39 GMT666Tag