July 3, 2004

Fahrenheit 9/11: Weekend #2.

Paul Krugman in the New York Times: "The film's appeal to working-class Americans, who are the true victims of George Bush's policies, should give pause to its critics, especially the nervous liberals rushing to disassociate themselves from Michael Moore.... Mr. Moore may not be considered respectable, but his film is a hit because the respectable media haven't been doing their job."

That smirk.

Todd Gitlin for openDemocracy: "He could show us that war kills and Bush is appalling, and yet be more scrupulous. But Moore is the only Moore we have – alas. Moore is the anti–Bush, and damn if we didn’t need one."

IndieWIRE's Eugene Hernandez asks filmmakers, festival programmers and other 'xperts a couple of questions Moore's film has raised: "How do you define the term 'documentary film'?" "Is Fahrenheit 9/11 a documentary?" "How has the definition of documentary changed in recent years, if at all?"

And IndieWIRE Insider points to Sam Harrelson, who in turn, points to Dawn Anfuso's piece at iMedia Connection on how Fahrenheit 9/11 online buzz, from simple searches to full-blown reviews, is selling tickets.

Doc news, at or via Movie City News:

Spinsanity has been on Moore's case for a long, long time, and they're certainly not letting up now.

Katha Pollitt in the Nation: "I wish Moore had acknowledged Bush's obvious political skills. It's not easy to fool 40 percent of the people 100 percent of the time."

Via Alternet, Peter Y Sussman for the Pacific News Service: "Moore may conceivably nudge a few undecideds, but his real accomplishment may be firing up his own partisans, especially the cynical young and the economically ignored." And Joel Bleifuss for In These Times: "What do Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Michael Moore have in common? They have all fallen victim to Michael Isikoff's poison pen."

Online viewing tip. Moore on The Daily Show.



Bookmark and Share

Posted by dwhudson at July 3, 2004 11:42 AM