I wanted to start a thread here in Casual Conversation for everyone that has seen the film to share their impressions of both the film and the evening's experience. It seemed that was started in another thread but got out of control and was really off topic to begin with.

I figure that this thread will help all of us to discuss the movie intelligently and serve as a jumping off point to start new threads to debate specific issues.

Both view points are welcome in this thread of course, provided you have seen the movie. However, in order to keep this casual, if we start to disagree about something we should stop what we're doing and start a thread to debate in another area to keep things light. I'm sure the moderators will be happy to remind us of that too

I'll go ahead and go first, this is basically a repost with a few edits from another thread.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My wife and I walked into a completely sold out theater this evening to see Fahrenheit 9/11 (for every show this evening and the majority of saturday and sunday). I cheked earlier in the day and nearly every bay area theater was sold out, I heard it is breaking box office records in major cities all over the US.

The movie was in a word, amazing, quite possibly the most important film released in the last 30 years. It was artfully put together and Moore allowed the footage to speak almost entirely for itself. You could have completely edited out his narration and it wouldn't have changed the profound power of the movie.

The movie didn't really bring any new information to light for me, thanks largely to debates here at AD. What the movie did do for me is tie all of that information together in a meaningful way. It also had lots of stock footage to offer that while in the public record, has never been shown on any news program I've watched. The facts are flawless here, I can't wait till the anti-moore crowd puts up their web pages trying to discredit the movie. Good luck guys, you aren't going to find much. Moore is particularly clear when he is making his opinion known and when he is presenting facts.

Fahrenheit 9/11 was extremely emotionally powerful and nearly brought me to tears a few times, nearly encited me to rage in others. Some of the most profound scenes in the movie were the footage the day of 9/11 and the footage from Iraq of civilian casualties and soldiers giving us their perspective. The scene included in the beginning of the movie about 9/11 was just chilling, there was no video, only audio of the days events, then the camera fades to the crowd's faces -- it brought it all back for just a second and it was such a beautiful work of art.

Much of the footage was also good at exposing Bush for his "Bushisms". The most powerful indictment here is the scene where he is reading to grade school kids on the morning of the attack. Before he even goes in the room he knows the first plane has hit, yet he opts to continue with his photo op. A few minutes later the chief of staff comes in and tells him that we are under attack. The look on his face pretty much says it all. Not only that but he sits there dumfounded, lost in the headlights for a full 7 minutes. Moore doesn't show the whole 7 minutes, but he lingers long enough for us to think about how any other president would have reacted -- JFK, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, anyone. They would have quietly excused themselves and demanded to be put in contact with their staff, Bush sits there confused.

Moore also lets the Democrats have it too, no one is spared here. The scenes in the beginning of the movie where Gore is presiding over the senate to certify the election results is very dsiheartening. Several members of the house come to make objections signed by other house representatives and members of their community, but not one single senator would make the necessary co-signature which would have prompted a recount.

Tonight I saw some amazing things. Groups of people I never see at the movies. I also saw tons of teenagers in the theater that normally would have been getting in trouble on a friday night, but tonight they were watching a documentary at the movie theater. It felt like a rock concert, but without the marajuana.

Afterwards everyone was energized, fired up and striking up conversations with strangers. All in all, it was a great experience and I really haven't ever walked out of a movie feeling like that before.

Edited to Add: This article in the San Francisco Chronicle gives a good summary of what it was like in theaters here last night, I experienced many of the same things in the theater I went to. Just thought I'd included it for interesting reading.

My two brothers and I went to a 11:40 am showing of the film at the same small theatre where I saw Bowling For Columbine. My brothers and I don't share the same feelings on favorite NFL teams, foods or types of women, but we do share a mutual loathing for George Bush so off we went.

After the movie was over we went for brews and burgers. We agreed that it was a one-sided, left-wing propaganda piece that depicted the Bush family and Administration in the worst light possible.

But so what? It was messy, sprawling and ocassionally scatteshot, but it was brilliant and easily the best movie of 2004 so far. Our crowd didn't totally fill the house, but we did have to stand in line to get in and nobody seemed to be falling asleep.

The protests that Michael Moore is not a journalist, isn't impartial and has an agenda is true. But so what? Neither is Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter and the conservatives seem to like them just the way they are. Why can't a liberal be as biased and pugnacious as a Limbaugh or Coulter.

I really appreciated how Moore didn't pummel the audience with yet another shot of the planes ploughing into the World Trade Center. Without giving away the movie to those who intend to see the film, I'll just say the method he used was very powerful and effective.

As a documentary I don't think the film will sway the mind of the already converted such as can be found on this board. If you thought Bush was a jerk before all Fahrenheit 9/11 will do is convince you of how big a jerk Bush really is.

However, the picture could be run backwards with no sound and Moore fans will still think it's the greatest film in American history. Throwing all pretense of impartiality to the wind, he bombards us with facts, figures and footage to support his one and only contention: Bush bullied the world into an immoral war in Iraq. Fans of the Flint native will have no interest in questioning anything their hero says, while those who would appreciate even the tiniest shred of context, objectivity or fairness will just have to suffer. So, in pure filmic terms, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a second-rate documentary, but it is first-rate entertainment and top-notch muckraking.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Fahrenheit911-1133649/

I don't necessarily agee with the critic from Box Office Magazine that fans of Moore (such as mysef) will happily swallow whatever bile he coughs up about Bush. Moore, like Limbaugh and Coulter, tends to overreach and preach to the choir with a smug assertiveness that makes him a blowhard (like Limbaugh and Coulter).

However, I challenge even the most rabidly faithful fan of George Bush, not to be moved over the plight of Lila Lipscomb. When you see the movie you can't help but share her anguish and pain.

Unless your name is George W. Bush.

I think the right wants to make Moore the issue because they have no answers for the questions he raises.
As for calling it propaganda, my question is what is it propaganda for? Watching this movie it is clear that the Democratic party is complicit in the crimes of this administration. This is propaganda in favor of basic human decency, not any one political party or any one side of any political debate.

I agree. This movie was hard on both parties as well as the media. I wonder how all those Democratic Senators felt during the segment where the House Reps were objecting to the election and couldn't get the one vote they needed from one of them to let it stand. That was one thing I didn't know about before the movie. I also don't remember any of the footage it showed of Bush's inauguration trip to the White House. This is probably because I didn't start paying attention to politics until after 9/11.

I saw it yesterday and the theater was full, even the seats in front that are usually empty. People applauded at the end. I brought one of my pro Bush friends. I think she left the movie feeling sorry for Bush. She was also under the strong impression that he isn't the one running things, that his father is. This was surprising to me because I've always been under the impression that Bush Sr. disagree's with what his son has done although he would never say so in public. It seems to me there is a tension between them. In the end the part showing how he just sat there after we were attacked made the biggest impression on her. She does not believe he will be re-elected.

To me, the movie didn't go far enough...it didn't focus enough on Bush's lies or those of his cabinet. It also doesn't mention his religiosity. But I am one of the only people that admit I hate Bush, both his personality and the way he's run this country so it's not surprising that I feel this way.

I just came back from seeing the film. It was very disturbing, but outstanding nevertheless, and certainly deserving of two thumbs up. On such a beautiful summer afternoon, the theater was very full, and almost everyone applauded at the end.

As my friends and I remained seated during the closing credits, a woman in the row in front of us turned around. With tears in her eyes, she said that her son is serving overseas in the military (fortunately, in Italy rather than in the Middle East). She said that it was hard for her to come to see the film alone, but she was glad that she did. Then she said that she hoped everyone in America would see it.

It is amazing to me that anyone would consider the film unpatriotic - unless one has not seen it. The film truly honors those serving in the military, and shows how this country’s leaders have betrayed them.

Unfortunately I can't edit the thread anymore, but I also wanted to add another motivation for creating this thread.

I'm hoping that all of us can post our reviews, positive or negative, so that others on AD (and those guests lurking) who might be undecided about (or against) seeing the movie might be able to make a better decision. Generally if you get a recommendation, either positive or negative, from a friend you'll pay more attention to that than even the most well respected critic.

Let me add a couple of notes: I live in the buckle of the Bible Belt, solidly in what is supposed to be Bush country- when I went to see this (a 10AM Sunday matinee, the earliest I could fit around my work schedule) the audience was packed, and there was applause at the end. The kind of reaction I've only experienced going to the opening night of a major release like the Lord of the Rings films.

I think the film is incredibly effective- the information relayed is nothing new for the most part, but there is a big difference between reading about war casualties on both sides and the emotional reaction of seeing good people who have lost family members for an unjust war, seeing soldiers who have lost their faith in the country that sent them off to be shot at. The most important thing this film does is to humanize the war, to take it out of the realm of abstract debate.

While there are many who maybe feel this way, there are those who don't and have also lost loved ones in Iraq. Believe it or not, one of the military commentaries on Fox(I know, that dreaded network)lost his son in Iraq. There are two sides and this only showed one sided.

True, however we've been bombarded with the 'other' side since before the war. All the cheerleading you could ever want can be found daily on Fox News as well as the other corporate news channels. So I don't see why it matters that this movie leaves that side out.

For anyone that has seen the movie this page on MichaelMoore.com is a good read. Here Moore gets out in front of all of the criticism he believes is going to come in the following weeks and gives everyone his sources and reasoning.

On a few of the topics he has links to full pages dedicated to that topic. If you are a skeptic or just want to check your facts this is worth taking a look at.

This page contains stories from several of the cities in which the film opened, most of these cities are in battle ground states, or they are conservative strongholds.

I went in to the sold out theater reminding myself to take all the facts and images and opinions in cautiously, and to basically watch the movie like a movie critic would, looking for flaws. I wanted especially to look out for places where Moore evoked great emotion, then callously pedaled his opinions, because he employed that extensively in "Bowling for Columbine."

Moore did not use emotion to prove his own points; he used emotional scenes to speak for themselves. Moore often brought forth facts and images, and, although it is obvious what he is implying, lets you decide. Granted, he doesn't show all the facts surrounding an incident or person, just those that help his case. Another great positive aspect of the movie was that there was much less Moore in it. He wasn't always narrating and was barely ever on screen. A pro because Moore isn't too pleasant to hear or look at. Finally, the movie really does answer many questions, and meets many expectations. I came looking for problems, and with many of the rebuttals in mind, but the film holds itself together very well. No movie is worth eight bucks, but I would recommend seeing this one. There was thunderous applause at the end.

The movie got out around 12:30, and like CB's experience, there were numerous conversations that went on after the movie. My brother, his friend and I lurked in the parking lot and talked and debated about what we had seen. This lasted until around 2 a.m. and we got tired and left.

Whatever can be said about the film's accuracy, it remains a powerful and thought-provoking movie. Would this film have been made with any other administration in charge, had 9/11 happened regardless?

I had very much the same experience as Radiowen, seeing as how I'm his brother and was there and all. Like him I went in bracing myself for a full out tidal wave of Moore's opinions, but like it's been said before, he didn't really throw out his opinion a whole lot. Most of it was showing links between Bush and the main players in war in Iraq and post 9/11 things.

Moore goes through much of the movie implying many things but never comes out and says them. He lets you draw your own conclusion from what he has presented, and although some of the facts may have been skewed to help him, the facts he doesn't present are many and impressive.

Not only does Moore cover the events of 9/11, but he also spends considerable time on the 2000 election, soldiers and parents feelings of the war, what group of people are fighting the war (socio-economically) in the US, and of course the inept leadership abilities of Bush whether he's in office or not.

Overall the movie brought up a lot of questions and put many facts in the light while delivering it in a powerful presentation. Conservatives can denounce his use of half-truthes and his one sidedness, but the facts he presents and his footage of Bush when 9/11 is happening doesn't lie.

I just saw it tonight at a theatre in Springfield, Illinois. Something kind of cool is that Barak Obama the man running for Senator was at the theatre. So if anyone wants to know if the next senator from Illinois has seen fahrenheit 9/11 the answer is yes.

My opinions on the film? Typical Moore. Raises good points and questions with at times bad intel and fabrications and caters to the Euro crowd by painting Americans as videogame loving killers who cannot comprehend the difference between right or wrong....the vision Europe loves to think of the US as having. Which is why Englishman can come in here crediting Moore with enlightening Americans when Moore is one of the most dishonest and self-serving filmakers ever. Columbine has numerous errors and is about as close to a documentary as U-571 is to a historically accurate world war II movie.

Of course Moore does his sole defender of the blacks spiel why ignoring major realities. Charlie Rangel tries this tactic often. In example the constant portrait that American soldiers come from Americas poor (the true patriots in Moors socialist eyes) and the Elite sends them out in order to make themselves richer and because they themselves are not in the army. This of course is wrong. There is not a huge disparage in racial or economic background enlistments. Rangel has eaten his words time and again on this issue. A wide variety of American race and economic classes join at about exactly the same rate. Race and economic background do not matter for military enlistments. They tried this stuff in nam. Saying a disproporionate number of blacks served and died in nam but the statistics proved that wrong.

Moore makes a great point a military should only be used when it is necessary. Meaning Kosovo, Iraq 2002 are no no's.

Moore does take it to certain congressman. He brings them enlistment papers for their children. A very valid and needed gesture as far as I am concerned.

At the theater Liberals in the crowd ( which to be honest was everyone) hooted and yelled. Laughs abound. Some very sad moments especially the 9/11 footage and with the Lipscomb lady from Flint...very touching. It is an important movie. I cannot call it a documentary. To me a documentary is BBCWORLD. This was Foxnews. People stood and clapped. Something I have never seen before which is impressive considering how many movies I have seen. Something that I liked is that alot of young people were in attendence. Then again I am afraid that many will walk away taking Moore as his word something that I do not consider trustworthy. It was packed. It was filled to capacity. I heard alot of laughter I heard some cries. At times I felt that some of the people who were hooting and hollering were going to get to involved and stand up and start cussing and have some big emotional breakdown. It at times felt that tense. I also feared that some die hard republican was going to stand up and say something disparaging about them film and then be mauled. All in all it was unlike any movie watching experience I have had. Anyone who doesnt like Bush will love this film. Which is why it got a 30 minute standing ovation in France.
I must say his attack on the patriot act was weak. Two instances. One a weightlifter who was questioned the other a peace organization that had a spy in their mists. Nothing heinous really. Not the great boogie man or freedom oppressing monster that people expect. Just the federal offices checking very poor leads and then apparently disengaging.

The biggest problem I have is his disgusting and innacurate portrayel of pre war Iraq. Apparently what the rest of the world didnt know is that Iraq was a 24 hour parade paradise and the Americans went in a ruined a perfectly perfect nation. That is insane. Im sorry but anyone who thinks that Iraq was better off under Saddam I just cannot take seriously. Moore thinks Iraq and its leadership was legit.

I tend to despise Bush because he went in needlessly alone because he went in for the wrong reasons and without a plan. Not because he invaded a paradise with a legit government. This is why Moore doesnt like him.

In addition he attributes the Afghan war to an oil pipeline that was to run from the Caspian into Afghanistan. If I am not mistaken this idea was abandoned a long time ago.

Bush will stay clear because some of Moores content has him I think and because he cannot discredit an entertainer like he can to an O'Neill or a Clark.

He has a bunch of takes of Bush and Bush's admin making themselves look like idiots....However, I could not help but notice that Moore was very easy on Colin and Condo. The reason is because Moore is one of those self loathing white guys who thinks he should take it easy on African Americans...An Analogy. In the movie Remember the Titans when the white coach keeps recycling and apologizing the black players who misbehave and putting them on defense when they make mistakes while doing nothing to the white players. Denzel as usual adds the critical line. "Your not helping them your crippling them". Moore is an apologist of black people. He doesnt judge the individual he judges their color. Yes Moore in my opinion is a racist.

IM sorry in my typical idiot fashion I rambled off topic I think. I pretty much ignored the movie and the movie watching experience and basically wrote a critique of the film. In order to correct it I will bold the movie watching experience.

Kalabus, have you seen Roger and Me? In there he is just as hard on the black people as he is on the white. Could his lack of focus on Powell and Rice perhaps be because they simply didn't present the same material for him to use? What else, aside from your single rant on the film, leads you to believe that Moore is a racist; one example seems like a poor foundation for such a strong accusation.

My question is, what fabrications? To my best knowledge I am not aware of any in the film. Please, tell us in your own words where he lies.

No, I havent to be honest only Columbine and this one. I have seen Canadian Bacon. A very good movie.

I find it very hard to believe that he couldnt find anything on people as public and tight with Bush. In fact I think its impossible especially on Rice.

What leads me to feel he is a racist? The inaccurate guns and NRA timline that he linked with slavery and keeping down the overpopulated blacks in southern slave states in the 18oo's. This is historical garbage. Blacks except for small portions in SC never outpopulated whites in the south and contrary to popular belief most slaves were not owned in the plantation environment that necessitated guns. Most blacks in the south were owned in onsies and twosies. In addition in Columbine he paints the picture of the poor disadvantaged black kid in Michigan who shot and killed the girl at his school. He paints it that the kid found his uncles gun and because his mother had to commute to work he was unsupervised and granted access to a gun he wouldnt have been able to get a gun that led him to make a tragic mistake at school as if is uncle had the gun for self defense. The reality is that the kids Uncle was a crack dealer and the kid was the school bully who on another occasion stabbed someone. He also ignores the reality that most gun violence occurs within race and is between people who know each other. He takes responsibilty away from blacks. He blames society, he blames white people. the NRA and sure that attributed to the problem but he leaves blacks guiltless. He never interviews black people in Columbine. He never goes in black neighborhoods. He never puts them in the equation except as always the unfortunate answer to corrupt and outside circumstance. Its like what Al-Jazeera does with the Palestinians. Always the victims.

He lies in saying that America's elite dictate and control an army that consists of disadvantaged (usually minority) Americans to serve their own purpose. This well is a lie. Army enlistment numbers are consistent and comparable amongst ethnic groups and economic backgrounds. In short someones economic background and race mean nothing as far as army enlistments go. People from different economic and racial backgrounds tend to enlist at a comparable rate. This is something that representative Charles Rangel has tried to bring up several times and the facts tend to make him eat his words. I wouldnt say he lies as much I would say he embellishes/exagerates and fabricates certain thngs to link a point. Something he was caught doing in Columbine several times.

If the rest of the world wants or thinks the US should think more like Moore then im sorry even as a liberal who despises Bush I am against you. Moore is an entertainer with his own opinions. If the day comes that America starts moving in the direction of Michael Moore it will be a black day and a black America. You want to know what seperates the rationale and logic of say a Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore to me? Nothing. Both extremists both dishonest and both self serving.

Kabalus, if you want to call Moore a racist that is fine, I'd appreciate it if you didn't do it in this thread. If you really want to explore that, and can support it with evidence, I'd suggest you start a thread in another area.

You gave your review of the movie and that is fine, I'd personally appreciate it if you wouldn't drag this thread down by turning it into a sideline debate. This thread was not meant to be a debate, just a place for people to share their impressions of the film.

While it was fresh in my mind, I posted my first impressions of this movie in another thread.

This morning, it was a pleasure to turn on the news and learn that the weekend take for the movie exceeded the entire sales for Bowling for Columbine. The news reports mentioned that in the Northern States at least, the theaters showing the film were consistently sold out.

I heard a couple of remarks from dissenters that Moore was just preaching to the choir, and wouldn't change any minds. Perhaps... but if this is any indication of the size of the choir, let us sing and rejoice.

It was fascinating to hear on a couple of networks that I tuned to that the big news story of the day was the movie sales; and by the way, we also turned over sovereignty to the Iraqis two days earlier than planned. Our chief honcho boarded a military flight and left Iraq. American soldiers are of course still on the ground, and Bush is still turning to other nations for military help in Iraq. Bush was photographed looking at his watch at the time of the turnover. Is this going to be another "Mission Accomplished" moment for George? Will he actually have the chutzpah to address the nation and say that we have left Iraq; and we are mo longer an occupying army, simply an ongoing military presence? If this was an attempt to draw the news coverage away from the movie, it seems to have failed so far.

Like other posters, I noted the ovation at the end of the film. It is an uncommon reaction in these parts as well. The film is worth seeing, and we will likely see it again.

I saw it last night there was not a standing ovation at the end, it was what I expected, the only part that surprised me and hacked me off was the way he showed military recruiters. Roger and Me was better IMHO.

I saw the film this afternoon.

It had quite an effect on me, in many ways.

I was saddened by the reality of greed and power,
and what atrocities can occur when the two merge.

We are all human beings, and whether one is a Republican
or a Democrat, or something else, what does it really matter.
We are all at the mercy of our elected leaders.

If I could say one thing to those of you who refuse to see the
film, for whatever reason, and especially if you are a devoted
Bush supporter, it would be this:

"You are not wrong for supporting an administration that has
successfully deceived you. But, to blindly give your allegiance,
without examining all facts and information (such that has been
brought to light in this film), you are being played a fool, by
a group who wouldn't think twice about sending you or your loved
ones into harms way, for their own personal profit."

I saw the film Sunday night. Being neither a Democrat nor a Republican, I was in a good position to not take offense at much of what Moore presented in terms of opinion and interpretation. Being a member of the military, however, it was still hard not to get a little ruffled around the edges when later scenes involving military personnel in Iraq were shown. Also, like many other posters, I found the film moving at various points.

There were plenty of interpretations and assessments in the movie that I did not agree with. However, what impressed me most about the movie was that it was primarily rooted in facts, often with the necessary video footage and sound recordings to back it up. I think any critic of the movie needs to take an honest intellectual accounting of those facts and address most of them in order for their critique to really have merit.

Having said that, the movie is still primarily an editorial piece, that Mr. Moore himself admits is intended to change voter's minds about voting to re-elect the President. He has every right to do that. But leaving the movie, I thought back to Obi-Wan Kenobi's advice to Luke in Episode VI (the third movie to come out in that series). Something to the effect of "Many of the truths we cling to depend entirely on our point-of-view." I think this is very apt and true.

Overall, I would say that this movie is worth seeing, regardless of whether or not you are a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, left or right-wing, etc. No matter which way you go or what decisions you make as to what reality is or isn't, you almost always benefit when you let yourself listen to other people's points-of-view and keep an open in mind. Just try to check your partisan propriety at the door, and remember that it's only a movie.

I saw "Bowling for Columbine" and I thought it very good despite it's leftist spin. There was much more esoteric information in it than what I was familiar with or than the film in question. Fahrenheit seems to carry on this tradition, yet it resonated more. Quite possibly because my conclusions about 9/11 more closely coincided with the film and the material cuts a little deeper.

I especially enjoyed his portrayal of the media. This was one of the best points of the film. He nailed this one down perfectly. Our current all-day news media outlets are all about the entertainment and editorialism EVERY DAY. Fahrenheit's 'editorial' ego is nowhere near as bloated as FoxNews or even CBS.

I thought Moore made good on his efforts to "blame the chief" and not the "indians" to use a cliche. He seems to have a talent for finding people who are willing to share their deep feelings about the aftermath of 9/11, especially the mother who lost her son to the war in Iraq. I am sure there are those out there who believe that she was exploited for her feelings, but I got the feeling it was cathartic for her, and many people like myself are grateful to her for her frankness about it.

I also think it was fair to the president. I believe it represented his rhetoric exactly how he has represented himself except in more synoptic form. It showed him in his more emotional states which I believe to be genuine, but it also shows the play-acting. Side by side it is easier to tell the difference for most people. This was something I am already familiar with and it validates my own sentiments on his behavior. With character so important with respect to the office of the president, I think you have to take the whole package, the good and the bad. Does the good outweigh the bad in this case? IMHO, yes, but that is something everyone decides on their own (or should decide on their own). My prediction is that the notion of 'character' will not be repeated ad infinitum in this election as it was in 2000, it is old-fashioned already.

It is important to note that none of the visual material seems to have been falsified, nor are the 'opinions' of the players (Q: how do you falsify an opinion?). Many people will likely dismiss his conclusions entirely, but I believe they are fooling themselves. So-called conservative "critics" all over the the country are playing semantic/perception games: "what you saw really didn't happen" ; or are hedge-betting that their audience will not view it at their behest (perhaps if they start foaming at the mouth or shout a little louder they can achieve their goal). This is their only defense against Moore. He must have foreseen this too, because he addresses the notion of 'combating "terror" (IOW "fear") through ignorance', an oxymoron IMHO, in the film. Responsible people will view it; people who want to pretend life is like 'Disneyland' will not.

I wrote a little bit about my impressions in another thread, but since this is the official "Impressions of Fahrenheit 9/11" thread I'll try again here.

I was a film studies major back in my college days, and though I never finished that degree (having my first daughter changed my plans a bit) I still remember enough about what make a good film. And aside from politics (I am aware that the politics of the this film matches mine) this film is very well and skillfully done. Michael Moore's filmaking talents grow with each film. And his talent really is in filmaking -- I was disappointed with his book "Dude, Where's My Country" and thought that "Stupid White Men" was okay ( a lot of good info, but not the most engaging book)-- but thought the "Bowling for Columbine" was excellent and F 9/11 even more so.

As a fairly passionate person, I found F 9/11 to be an emotional roller coaster. Laughing was followed by crying a few minutes later. I have also never felt as physically ill in film as I did in this one during certain scenes.

I also found that Moore tied information together really well, helping to draw most of the information I already knew into a cohesive whole.

This film certainly deserved the top prize at Cannes beyond the political message. I would be very surprised if this film was not nominated for the Best Picture Oscar.

Since the Right was opposing the movie so much I thought it would be a heavy Bush bash and I was suprised that it didnt come aross as such. You could almost feel sorry for Bush, at first. The long takes of him in various scenarios allows one to perceive what one desires making your own conclusions. In fact many of the other various takes simply allow one to make ones own conclusions, including the bafflement on that Congressmans face when Moore asks him to sign his own kids up for the war. It was genious, Moore needs say nothing.

There was a great deal of entertainment in the film, I noticed the audience laughed both together and separately. I suppose I was less affected by some things because I knew a lot of what was being represented, yet, my housemate, a staunch republican but generally uninformed kept saying to me "what?, did you know about this?" I think she was genuinely suprised at some facts, but would not change her opinion because in the end she thinks Bush is 'a cutie'. Hmmn, whatever floats your boat.

The beauty of the film is that it did cause laughter throughout, it wasnt preachy or force down your throat kind of thing. It presented itself in political comedy, then suddenly not. I began to get uneasy near the end hoping the emotion was not prestaged and forced.

I consider myself well informed but I was not aware of two things, that so many House Reps. protested the election results and could not get a Senator to sign, this was outrageous in my opinion, I couldnt believe the footage (actual), plus how many protestors there were during the inaguration and that the traditional inagural walk was cancelled because of it. This was given no coverage I know of at the time. So much for the liberal media.

There were many age groups in the theatre when I went, 10:30 Monday night, but as others have said many young people attended. Noone was bored thats for sure, the audience was engaged, there was applause at the end.
This film did not deserve an "R" rating by a long shot. This was over-reation to basically nothing, which makes one wonder. Not so much what Moore said, because what he said is easily written off to some extent as partisan, but fear of the conclusions people may come to? For those of us that knew all this info it was nothing new and some of it falls into total conspiracy. The question is why it was percieved as such a threat?
This makes the damning of M. Moore and the film so much more valid in the political spectrum. IF he's so wrong why such backlash? Possibly that the film relys on clips and realtime footage, that even the most partisan or contra-position cannot deny some evident facts of the matter, however in my opinion it was not damning enough, it was pure entertainment.

Although, Moore did well. He presented politics in the way that any good French satirist would, politicians as world power players, liars and mostly profiteers in their ends , but somehow not too bright in actuality, which is basically right on, yet not something americans are comfortable with...(either laughing at themselves or their leaders).
( How'd you all take to Wolfowitz sucking on his comb? Ewe yuck!) Moore made fun of them, yet lead to a condemning view of of the Iraq war, and sent a more serious message that politicians will send you to kill and be killed for personal profit. Also true.

I think thats why Moore wants this film to be seen by teens and I agree.

I just saw Fahrenheit 9/11 yesterday and I thought it had some interesting ideas but a lot of loose ends. He portrays the Bush administration as being bent personal gain in bed with the Saudi royality. I had just finished "The Halliburton Agenda" so I was excited to hear the author discuss his views.

Moore has an important perspective and one of the points I thought he drove home was that of the 500+ members of Congress only one had a child in Iraq. He dwells on this he demonstrates what I have allways suspected, people who start wars have no intention of actually fighting them. He contrasts the impersonal way Congress supported the march to war in Iraq with a mother from his home town of Flint Michigan who had lost a son. She ultimatly blames Bush for his death and I give Moore high marks for the dramatic effect but the actual substance leaves something to be desired.

Overall I think he has an important perspective and found it well worth the price of my ticket to see this movie.

Just curious, does he mention who this one person was? There are actually 7 members of congress with children on active duty. People tend to forget that all of our armed forces are NOT in Iraq. This isn't to say, that some who aren't there now, won't end up going there.

I stand corrected: there is falsified visual material in the film. He superimposed key administration's figures heads onto those of the television show "Bonanza" with the corresponding music in the background. Obvious satire, and much more saccharin than what you would see in the periodical "The Onion".

I too thought some of the material was lacking. There was a circuitous connection to a James R. Bath, a break-in to an apparently peace loving civilian home in Iraq by some GI's that seemed unconcluded. And of course there is no material about Hussein's atrocities probably because we have seen enough of it. It covers some of the atrocities we 'inadvertently' inflicted, which makes one question: is it worth it?

The fact that only one representative had a child over there is very telling; the narrative conclusion is right on, and something I was not surprised about. It's merit is that it made you feel as if you were there in Iraq, something we should do any time we engage in war, it makes you question the real motives for doing such a thing. I felt we shouldn't be there from the beginning. It was a slippery thing for the president to do, and I think Moore caught him in it. Remember the representatives (one of them was featured in the movie) who went over there to see the conditions and were labelled by the neocons as traitors? Moore graciously left that alone in the film. Funny thing is, regular Iraqis probably saw him as some kind of scout checking out their vulnerabilities. This was unprecedentedly unfair to him (I forget his name but not his face). I am sure Moore had even more damning 'reality' footage, and the Bush admin are lucky he didn't go there.

I am sure the neocons (I have a hard time accepting radicals of any stripe) will watch the upcoming 'Disney' independent film "Michael Moore Hates America" a film about a po-dunk film geek who stalks Moore waiting for him to drop some cookies, in essence a film about making a film using film: fascinating. Another summer blockbuster. If you ask them, this film should completely debunk Moore's on every point. Again, they can say this without even watching it.

One more note about the media. They have been and always will be all about the entertainment and editorialism. In this respect, they will never be 'independent' nor republican or democrat. I heard a quote somewhere once: "Soldiers are responsible for guaranteeing our freedom, not journalists". And most journalists are cowards, quite frankly. Moore shows more courage than most for taking on a 'popular' president in such a way. He gives us a little twang of fear by exposing just how much fear and ignorance exists out there. You deal with your fear by confronting it; you confront it by experiencing it, acutely (we had this in 9/11 itself, although I believe we didn't learn the correct lessons from it). This has been cleverly drawn out in a protracted 'seething' fear that is crippling and perpetuates itself ad infinitum. This is really what this film is about: The condensation of a 'seething' fear into an 'acute' fear, of a different kind than we are spoonfed by this admin or the 'media', but real nonetheless.

No he doesn't mention who this person is and I dare say it is beside the point. His point was actually that this war is being largely fought by the poor who profit very little from it. the war was actually started by the rich who profit from it greatly, at least thats his premise as I see it.

Im 18 years old and I started paying attention to politics last year. Since then I have a read a plethora of books, Vidal, Chomsky, Moore, Ehrenreich, and plenty more. Over and over I have absorbed information that shatters my previous perceptions. I really enjoyed F-9/11 because Moore did a fantastic job of stringing all the bits of hypocrisy and contraversy of the last four years into a palatable and entertaining film. I think F-9/11 conveys absolutely everything it intended to, and I couldnt possibly imagine that it hasn't had a tremendous effect on EVERYONE who has seen it.
If one goes into the movie expecting that everything Moore says is a lie, then of course it doesnt work. But Moore is as accurate as humanly possible, sure you can go to some of the de-bunking sites that target this film, but the only examples they give are not lies, just poor mis-interpretations. see Move America Forward's F-9/11 debunk for a few examples of poorly applied logic.

I love the film, I will take every single conservative or moderate I can to go see it, because Moore makes the case that I haven't been able to articulate as of yet.

While not my impressions, they are the impressions of someone the left puts on a pedestal:

ABC News 6/25/04: “ … what filmmaker Michael Moore neglects to say is that those flights were green-lighted by … Richard Clarke.”

Richard Clarke: “I thought the flights were correct. The Saudis had reasonable fear that they might be the subject of vigilante attacks in the United States after 9/11. And there is no evidence even to this date that any of the people who left on those flights were people of interest to the FBI.” (ABC News 6/25/04)

Richard Clarke: “The Saudis were not allowed to leave until the FBI cleared them of posing any danger and having knowledge of Osama bin Laden's whereabouts” (CNN 06/28/04)

Richard Clarke: “Making the incident a big part of the movie was a mistake.” (CNN 06/28/04)

Regarding Bush ties to the Saudis:

Richard Clarke: “That's nuts. There was absolutely no connection between the Bush administration's failure to get around to terrorism prior to 9/11, and any family or financial ties the Bush family might have had with Saudi Arabia.” (ABC News 6/25/04)

But hey, that's only Richard Clarke's view of this propaghanda piece.

I saw the film last night, and to be honest I wasnt really impressed. Its hard to explain, but I guess since I knew about most of the things Moore talked about, the impact wasnt the same. In fact, I felt he skimmed over too many things in order to cram in alot of info. Which, in a way, is good because it gives people incentive to look up that information on its own. There were a few things that I found outrageous, namley the Senate hearing with Gore and the Reps. It depressed and angered me. I think the movie is important because it does bring up points that alot of people know little or nothing about, and I hope people go, see it, and dont entirely dismiss everything movie talks about (which is something Ive noticed that people like to do, I heard two guys doing that after the movie last night), especially Saudi connection and I hope the images of Iraq changes someones mind because there are too many people out there dying for no reason.

You are welcome to share your thoughts on Richard Clarke, keric - in another thread.

Yep, these are the two things that were new to me too. I figured maybe it was because I didn't become political until after 9/11 but still, the media should have reported this stuff during and immediately after the election....I do remember SOME footage at that time and I'm pretty sure I'd remember this too if they had shown it.

The other part that got gasps from the audience was after the Taliban spokesman had gotten grilled by the female journalist. If a comment like that made them gasp imagine if they knew the whole story about the way the vile Taliban treated people, not just women, that were under it's control.

At least it was a beginning...I hope it makes more people want to become informed because there is so much more out there that they probably don't know if any of this was new to them.

I just had the pleasure of seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight; it was absolutely amazing. To begin with, Moore's use of footage to create this emotional roller coaster was masterful; you could be laughing one moment and on the verge of tears in the next frame. I must say that it certainly didn't change my mind about Dubya, and it merely served to intensify my feelings about him and his administration. Moore's films just get increasingly better, and I would not be at all surprised if this won an Oscar for Mr. Moore. The story of Lila Lipscomb had me nearly weeping. There were some incredibly funny moments as well (e.g. when Mr. Moore decided to read the PATRIOT Act to the members of Congress). There were even some moments when I was enraged. As it has been mentioned, Mr. Moore could have remained completely silent and simply shown this footage and it would have been equally powerful. There were some absolutely shocking moments-- most shocking being when the Representatives were unable to garner a single Senatorial signature to object to the election results. Shame on you, Mr. Kennedy! Mr. Moore handled the scenes of 9/11 tastefully and elicited the emotions he wanted exactly. I don't think he went over the top with any scenes, and the movie was a perfectly balanced mix of information, editorial, and sheer emotional ride. I think the scene where he is trying to enlist congressional sons and daughters to fight in the war they started was powerful and humorous (in fact, one of our state representatives was the first man Mr. Moore stopped-- he offered an explanation to the state about how his children were "too old to serve" ). All in all, I loved this movie and I will most certainly be seeing it again. I would recommend it if you can take a little bit of Leftist fun mixed with cold, hard fact. Don't go if you're expecting an enlightened and balanced view of the issues, because you simply won't get it. That doesn't, however, bother me at all. If I want a balanced debate of the issues, I'll come here.

Bravo, Tennessee Leftwinger!

Just for some balance, here's a take by a long-time liberal professional journalist who did not like Moore's work:

Richard Cohen, Baloney Moore or Less

Been reading Cohen since living around DC circa 1988. He's most definately a voice of mainstream liberal America. So we can conclude that some liberals, this one smack dab in the thick of things, did not learn anything new nor had any emotional reactions to F-9/11.



This part didn't shock me, nor did the scenes of eggs being thrown at the President Elect's limo. I remember the 2000 election as being one of the most dangerouos times in our democracy/republic. To keep the whole together, Democrats let it pass. That's why no Senator signed on for the legal protestations. I see this as a statement that no matter how partisan, sneaky, or even crooked the 2000 election turned out, the greater good of preserving our system prevailed for Demos.

What Moore does is remind us of what we might already know, as Cohen points out and finds disgusting. Well, he is a pro with his nose fully into the pile. It probably doesn't stink so much for him as a result.

The rest of us aren't pros. The pile does stink. What I felt as legal protest after legal protest was issued was not shock. It was rage. Rage that the good will of Demos toward our nation was taken, used, abused, and thrown back in our faces in the form of a dubious war that calls our sons, daughters, friends and neighbors to fight under leadership that does not have a clue, nor any flesh in it.

The rage can't stay for very long. It diffused into profound disappointment with the Republicans who have been granted power by a trusting electorate.

Moore's film is taking that trust and showing how it is misplaced. Maybe that's what ticked Cohen off? I mean, doesn't he still have some shred of trust that the Republicans in power have the best interests of the United States at heart?

Maybe so. I don't.

I actually went to this movie last night, and no, I didn't pay for it and I didn't rip Moore off. I have a studio friend in LA who comped me, actually begged me to take a comp ticket off his hands and then bribed me with dinner. I must say, dinner was far better than the movie was, and frankly, I was somewhat surprised by that. Based on some of the rants and raves I've heard from the liberal left here and elsewhere, I at least expected that Moore wouldn't be quite as transparent as he is in this so-called "documentary". One example that jumped out at me as I was viewing it was when he started making fun of the "coalition of the willing". He might have at least mentioned the UK, Australia, Poland, Italy and Spain. Everyone knows about their participation except apparently, Michael Moore. I thought his "man on the street" interviews were sub-standard, definitely inferior to Jay Leno's and his edits and out of context cuts of quotes were pretty obvious. He could have at least faded them out and brought up some music instead of just chopping them. Kinda ruined whatever rhythmn he might have had going. Oh well, crappy movie, good dinner and I helped a friend unload some tickets......

Obviously I didn't agree with the political message in this flick, and I knew that going in, but from an artform standpoint, I thought it was substandard. I am now firmly convinced that a piece of garbage like this winning the award at Cannes was purley political. And believe it or not, that's a non-political objective viewpoint. Michael Moore makes crappy films.

Wow. Interesting critique, Aquilla. I came away from the film thinking that the production values were very high. Independently of politics, the connections made to the Saudi family were well-produced. I thought the 9/11 black-out-cut-to-shocked-onlookers scene was brilliant. The references to the "The Big Valley" and "Bonanza" such as "smoke 'em out" made me laugh out loud. And the Linda Lipscomb scenes while having over-the-top pathos seemed well-constructed within the framing narrative. Finally, there was that moment when Moore asked a Congressman to sign up his kids to the military. The look on his face was priceless. I'd see the film again just for that look.

So, independent of the message, I thought there were only a few places where the film didn't work so well. Overall, it was very well-produced. I'm a fan of documentaries too.

In a way I agree with Aquilla. We aren't used to having to pay money to see news clips and partisan pundits at the theater...that's what cable and network news provides. The only problem is they are not showing us relevant issues on TV news...their partisan pundits are all beltway prima donnas who have a different idea of what issues regular people through-out the country care about and they fight and debate meaningless issues.

This movie was entertainment news, with a lot of clips we haven't, but should have, already seen before and a pundit who thrives on delving into issues the DC pundits all fear to tread.

It didn't have great special effects or anything all that creative...but that's not why people flocked to see it. It provided something we aren't getting from our TV's.

Because I can't think of any place better to stick this, I'll put it here. The intent is to provide information, if people want to debate these facts and notes please start a new thread

Michael Moore's Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Notes & Sources

Since we're talking production values and artistic merit here......

Being aware of this thread and looking forward to the discussion that might follow, I cheated a little bit. I took some notes while I watched the movie. Been a long time since I've done that and I'm a bit rusty, but most of them are readable. I just happened to make note of some of your points here, Logophage. On the bin Laden family "ties", I noted that showing Bush obviously concerned and inserting Moore's "thoughts" (like he has any) into Bush's head was cheap and frankly, stupid. Here we have the President of the United States facing the biggest crisis in America since probably the Cuban Missile Crisis and he's trying to figure out what's going on, as were the rest of us and Moore asks the question about whether Bush is really wondering if people are going to "find out" about the bin Laden connection..... Logo, do you really believe that was what was going through Bush's mind at that time? Seriously? It was stupid and it was cheap.

The Bonanza and Big Valley scenes were cute and pretty clever. I'll give you that one. I didn't laugh out loud, but they were cute. The Linda Lipscomb part I thought was really badly done. Here was a mother who had lost a son in war and Moore's treatment of that was quite frankly, crass. It's like going up to a family member of someone who just got killed and asking them what they think about it. There was absolutely no artistic merit or sensitivity to that at all. I was offended by that segment, not at Ms Lipscomb, but at Moore for exploiting her grief. Here this poor woman is, lost her son forever in war and he's having her talk about a politician? Sorry, that was absolute crap. What he should have done was ask her about her son, about his dreams for the future and what he wanted to do in life. Then, he could have made his own point by saying something like, "Thanks to this war Bush started, Ms Limpscomb's son will never realize those dreams....." (fade to black)

As far as your Congressman stuff is concerned, that's great for Candid Camera. If you enjoy that sort of thing let me know and I'll work out a deal with you. I'll take my camera out on the street and shove it in people's faces and ask them a question. Betcha I get some really funny looks from them. YOu can pay me by the laugh you get, cash only please.

AS far as CJ's Michael Moore "fact list" is concerned, not even going to go there here, and I'm sure as heck not going to open yet another thread for this worthless piece of trash movie. We have more than enough threads wasted on it as it is.

Let's see if I can counter some of these points...


I actually don't know what to think of what was going on in Dubya's mind at the time of the attacks. One hypothesis proposed by Moore is that Dubya didn't know what to do. It's a hypothesis. From a production values point of view, Moore's hypothesis was very effectively presented. You may not agree with it; you may believe it to be cheap; but there you go. It seemed to effectively irritate you .


Hmm... Here's what Ms Lipscomb had to say:

Go here for the full article. This doesn't seem to be the work of an exploiter. I thought her grief was powerfully presented. Whether you agree with the political context or not, I find hard to imagine that a viewer wouldn't be moved by it.


If it were done to Congressmen or even just any elected official (public servant), I'd probably watch it and pay for it. I'd particularly watch it when asking someone to metaphorically "put their money where their mouth is".


This doesn't sound like you at all, Aquilla. I appreciate your perspective on different issues. Just ignoring the positions and arguments being made in Moore's fact list seems...well...inconsistent of you.

If Michael Moore's point in making this movie was to irritate me, he could have just cut the chase and stood on camera doing a monologue.



Who wouldn't be moved by a mother who just lost a son? Ever been to the funeral of a young man killed in combat? I have, too many of them, way too many of them. I am glad that Ms Lipscomb didn't feel exploited or used, for her sake. But, I was addressing the effectiveness of the movie in making the point. Moore took the easy way out in my opinion. "Let's throw up mom and let the audience feel her pain and be angry at Bush" was the message I got from that segment. From a purely artistic standpoint I viewed that as cheap and easy. What I would have done would have been to have her talk about her son, share her son's life with the audience - his hopes and dreams. She doesn't know diddly squat about George W. Bush, other than she doesn't like him, but she does know about her son. Have her talk about him, celebrate him, focus on him. Share him with the audience and tell them his story. And then you show the audience the end of his story, a flag-draped coffin and do a voice-over with whatever political message you want to deliver, Anti-Bush, Anti-war. This is the price we pay.... I think that would have been far more effective.




I'll work out a price list for you, Logo.




Thanks for the compliment, I think.

Look, there are a ton of rebuttal websites out there for Michael Moore. I could list several of them here with a simple Google search and we could play dueling websites until the cows come home. But, I don't think that's what this particular thread is all about. Even though it's in Casual Conversation, there is still something of a theme going on here. It's about one's personal impressions of the film. I went out and watched it because I was invited to do so by a close friend of mine who had a bunch of free tickets to use for it. So, I shared my impressions of the movie as a movie in this thread. There are probably other threads here that deal with the factual nature of this movie, goodness knows there are plenty of F911 threads open, but I don't think this one is the proper place for that sort of discussion. Quite frankly, I don't think this movie is really worth that kind of effort. It really wasn't that good, certainly not as an artistic endeavor.

One of the things I think you are missing the point on the mother's story Aquilla is she was for the war before for many different reasons, like it being an opprotunity for her son. But after finding out the truths of this war in Iraq she changed her mind deeply. And even more heartening is her whole family has been in the military at one time or another so her point of view is coming from a deeply pro-military family point of view.

Cadman, I don't think that being "pro-military" is the same thing as being "pro-war". It's quite the opposite actually since war has the most effect on the military. I don't know frankly who is really "pro-war", I'm certainly not, but I do understand that sometimes it is a necessary thing that we have to do.

Anyway, back to the movie, as a movie. I guess the problem I have to the segment in question was that it lacked the kind of passion it should have had. What this movie did was to simply put a mom who lost a son to the war on screen and have the audience feel badly for her. That's a no-brainer, of course people are going to feel that way for a mother who has lost her son. But, there's really no passion there. Sure, she's passionate, it was her son, but we really don't know who he was. We feel sorry for her and her loss, but we didn't know him. That's not good movie-making, that's lazy. If one really wants to be effective, one should tell HIS story. Let the audience get to know HIM and instead of feeling sorry for the mother's loss, they instead SHARE her loss because they also know him. Just from a pure movie-making standpoint, and that's what this thread is about, it would have been far more effective.

His mother read his last letter aloud. It told his story. He had joined up with the willing and felt his trust had been violated. His story was also told before his deployment and death, as was the story of an all-volunteer armed forces.

One observation that came through: Hard economic times for certain segments of our population feeds the all-volunteer armed forces. Recruiters cruise the streets with big promises to any who will listen. Is it the answer for a failed economy, at least failing the lower rungs?

My personal feeling is that the story could have been expanded more into the middle class. Think it was to a point regarding reserves and National Guards. Would have to see the flick again to be sure.

My memories of this part are that Moore chose to focus on the mother because she was so gung ho before her son's death. Yeah, it's pathos in the extreme to have shown her grief. But I can think of even more extreme ways of putting this across, like a series of mothers showing their grief and a rally of families against the war. Maybe fade to scenes of coffins, gun salutes, graves, dying and dead soldiers in the field.

But Moore's point is the same as the point made in Red Badge of Courage: It's easy to be gung ho for war until war touches you, slams you, takes a part of you away. Will the lust for glory every return?

Not likely.

I came across this item in today's Washington Times "Inside the Beltway" column that's rather disturbing given the conversation here on exploitation in Moore's movie. Curious what some of the others here might think about it....



This my friends is exploitation to the max.

If footage has been used of personal times, such as above, without informing the people involved, then I doubt anyone can condone it. That's pretty low I must admit. I am a fan of Michael Moores presentations, both on film and in written form, as I find them very effective. It's also good to hear from an angry liberal every now and again, because more often than not we are indeed a quiet bunch

However, I'd be the first to admit that Moore does seem to use underhand tactics. Half truths are fine by me, he does afterall have an agenda and nobody should expect his work to be unbiased. I found the incident with Ray Bradbury quite funny; but if the above is true, and Moore did not even attempt to contact people involved in footage used, then that is more troubling. Definitely exploitation, and I'll be looking to see if he makes any reply to this on his site.

Still haven't managed to see the film, as it isn't showing at my local cinema. Hopefully I'll get to see it within the next week or so and give my own feedback. The discussion here on AD of the film has been great, though. I can go in looking for things that have been discussed, and try to be more impartial

I'm pretty sure that news report footage does not require release forms from subjects in that footage. You can imagine the legal problems every news reporting outfit would have if this were the case.

Had Moore filmed this himself, he might need release forms signed that state he has permission to use the footage in a work-for-profit. However, I'm rather doubtful that is true either. After all, did he get permission from C. Heston for Columbine footage?

So legal action is likely futile. Regarding the exploitation of a family, didn't the RNC already set that precedence with the use of 9/11 footage in GWB commercials? Actually, it comes down to good taste rather than legalities.

Moore had poor taste. That's the infraction here. He used something that a family is sensitive about and didn't ask permission first. So a question goes begging:

Was the family angry about the initial news report footage? Did the family take steps to purge the footage from the news organization's copyrighted archives? Perhaps make notation on it that it should never be used again for any reason?

Which of course, the family not having copyrights, the news organization would have to do voluntarily. Not likely given the value that news archives have for writers of nonfiction works, biographies and histories.

Without knowing the source of the footage this is impossible to determine.

However, this was likely news footage shot of the military funerals and Moore just used it. The news reporters may or may not have obtained permission to film the funerals. If that is in fact the case then he would not have had to obtain permission from the family and could have used the material under "fair use". That would mean they had no legal case and this is yet another thing that will increase the controversy to new levels.

Of course there is no way of knowing at this point since the source of the footage isn't clear. But if I were a betting man I would say it was news footage in the public record. You may not like Moore's message but as a documentary film maker I can assure you he is not stupid and is likely well versed in copyright law.

I'm not talking about the legal aspects of this, Fair Use is difficult enough for lawyers to understand much less me. Perhaps we might start another thread somewhere for that. But for this, I am talking about the moral aspects of using this footage however it was obtained without even informing the family about it. Seems to me to be a pretty crappy thing to do quite frankly.

That really gets into the ethics of broadcasting anything sensitive like that, which might make for a good media topic. Morally it is no different than news reporters staking out a high profile funeral to get a good story for the 6pm news in my opinion.