General Chat

nope, not yet

Well I know hardly anything about politics full stop. I watched this highly contraversial film and was shocked. If the accusations that Michael Moore makes are true then Bush is the most underhand, politically corrupt man walking this planet. Moore claims the Bush family are on intimate terms with the Bin Ladens and on the day after 9/11 only a few planes flew over American airspace, they were all carrying members of the Bin Ladens family and flying under Bush's orders. I do not know whether what Michael Moore says is true BUT surely if it was all lies he could be sued for libel and the film would never have been released? WATCH THIS FILM... very very interesting!

Hi Bec, I saw it and I've read Michael Moore's books. I cannot believe that anyone who read the books or saw the film could vote for Bush. Gwynne

Gwyneth - so it's not just me then??? Surely anyone with a grain of common sense who'd see these films would not vote for bush (this film, a documentary was a box office smash in America!). Anyone pro-Bush should watch Fahrenheit 9/11, apart from it's content about Bush it also follows the war in Iraq and features some very upsetting yet relevant scenes. Although I'll admit I know next to nothing about politics I found this film a real eye opener. Gwyneth - Do you agree about the libel (or is it slander!?) aspect? Surely if it was all falsfied information Moore could be taken to court? becx

Bec - I haven't seen the film, but I guess it would depend on whether it was shown as a 'true story' or had the 'any similarity with living persons or events is co-incidental' clause at the end.

Hi Bec and Gwynneth, Do you really believe believe what film-makers portray? Hollywood directors and producers have always written history as they want us see it, the Nazis and the Russian communists did not have copyright on propaganda. Michael Moore is no different. His version of the Bush story is exactly that- a version which he wants you to believe. One typical example of the rewriting of history by Hollywood is Mel Gibson’s 'Braveheart'. This film might have been briliant entertainment, but it was about as factual as the stories about Robin Hood and King Arthur, in other words, pure legend. It is true that William Wallace did rally the clans and on 11th September 1298 they won a brilliant victory at the Battle of Stirling Bridge, with the English suffering 5,000 dead. But Wallace was not the gentleman that Hollywood shows, one high-ranking English officer who had been killed had his skin removed and Wallace had a sword-belt made from it. And there was to be no happy ending for the Scots, far from it. In 1305 the clans showed their true mettle, loyalty was forgotten and Wallace was arrested by his fellow Scots and sent to London. He was tried, found guilty of treason and hung, drawn and quartered. Brutal maybe, but then Wallace was as brutal as everyone else in a brutal age. Please don’t believe films and film-makers versions of ‘the facts’, go to the library and read the original sources and make your own mind up.

No I don't Bernie! I was merely saying how interesting the film was and how I was suprised it did not influence the hoards of Americans who went to see it. I am not influenced by films, I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 because I enjoyed another of Michael Moore's films (Bowling for Columbine) which shocked yet amazed me.

Hi Bernie, Unlike the makers of Braveheart which is meant to be entertainment and is fiction Moore made a documentary and quotes his sources. His books are very well researched and every fact has a source. He just brought to public attention what other journalists had been trying to bring to the forefront. He quotes extensively from Al Franklyn who is another investigative journalist. Bush cannot deny what the "Freedom of Information Act" has allowed people to find out. Moore cannot be sued for speaking the truth. In the most litigious country in the world he would have been sued years ago if he spoke anything other than the truth. Of course I've read other books and articles around the subject of the Bush family links to the Bin Laden family and I've seen proof of how his "war record" was doctored. I'm not so naive as to take anything as the truth without reading around it first. Have you read any of Moore's books? Gwynne

My apologies Bec and Gwynneth, No, I have not read or seen Moore's works, (my field of research is British History), and I bow in respect to your opinions. Clearly Moore is a factual researcher. All I was trying to do was point out that many people believe that if it is on screen, then it is the truth. Clearly neither of you are in this category. Sorry and best wishes, Bernie

Hi Bernie, I'm off my soapbox now! I do feel very strongly about some things. I agree with you about the "fictionalisation" of our history in US films. I tend not to watch those sort of films, knowing I'm going to get annoyed. I remember the outcry by the family of an officer on the Titanic about the way he was portrayed in the film. And WW1 and 2 seem to have been completely rescripted by Hollywood. It takes a big man to apologise and this small woman is happy to accept it. Gwynne

Thanks Gwynne, I'll always admit when I am wrong, but if I know am right I will stand up to the devil himself. I know how you feel about Hollywood distorting things, but we in Britain do it as well. There was a British film called The Sound Barrier, in which a British pilot is the first through Mach 1. In fact it was an American pilot, Chuck Yeager, who first did it. I just get upset when any history is portrayed wrongly. There is no need for it, truth is always better than fiction. I'm not against fictional films, my wife took me to see the Rings trilogy and the Harry Potter films and I thought they were great entertainment. I am also not against drama based on historical events, Gone With The Wind remains the quintessential American Civil War film, but then Margaret Mitchell researched her facts. Regards, Bernie ps - I believe we have digressed somewhat from the American Election.