July 01, 2004

The Fahrenheit 9/11 backlash? I noticed the (mostly) positive reviews by our monkeys of Michael Moore's new movie. But even with this being a controversial film, Google News served up a heaping helping of negative reviews when I was browsing the news this morning.

Sorry, it is 4:30 am and I might have done a rough job on this, but I tried categorizing the first few pages of major reviews in the Google story group that came up: Against Fahrenheit: Newsday (Klurfield), Washington Post (Cohen), Atlanta Journal Constitution (Feldhahn), San Jose Mercury (Goodman), Flint Journal (York), Seattle Times (Raspberry) For Fahrenheit: Arizona Republic (Sexton) Neutral: San Jose Mercury (editorial), Boston Globe (editorial) Has anyone also noticed that the media seems heavily galvanized against Fahrenheit 9/11 or did I just hit a patch of bad reviews? Are there any surprises here? And did you all like this film? BTW, some of the media bias is reported in a Village Voice story. And btw, Disney is rolling out the guns against Fahrenheit 9/11: Heart And Soul.

  • At a guess, I'd say that of 162 reviews, 137 were positive, while 25 were negative. Probably with an average rating over all of the reviews of about 7.4 out of 10. But that's just a wild shot in the dark. :-) I'm not sure a reaction against it from people who utterly oppose its ideology could be called a 'backlash' - but if left-wing, liberal writers as a group start to argue that Moore's a destructive influence, or a distraction, or just a bad documentarian... that'll be a backlash. Not having read all the reviews, I don't know how many people are doing this already; most of the bad reviews I've read were fairly open about their political opposition to Moore. Haven't seen it yet, but will be heading off get me some BitTorrent action pretty sharpish, as I need to review it for my new job and it's not out over here for a week... America's Heart and Soul looks hilarious, by the way.
  • According to this about 90 percent of local newspapers gave it a positive review.
  • well, there's Christopher Hitchens at Slate slamming him pretty hard: "To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness."
  • Ah, good old Chris Hitchens - left-wing? Right-wing? Turning into Peter Hitchens? We may never know. But yes, his main point - that Moore fails to present a coherent argument, instead merely taking (often contradictory) pot-shots at Bush and his coterie - is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. It's awkward, because Hitchens' own incoherence and contradiction over his post-facto justification for supporting the Iraq war muddies his attack slightly. But... if a few more high-profile, nominally left-wing names start laying into Moore, then we'll have a backlash. The shame is, with that strange mannequin-type-thing as the Democratic candidate, right now the left needs all the fire and rhetoric it can lay its hands on, so any widespread backlash probably won't materialise.
  • Christopher Hitchens is an insipid wretch of a shlub who got abducted by aliens and had his brain fried. He used to be quite an excellent journalist and critic (see The Trials of Henry Kissinger), but he has since turned his back on everything he used to stand for, in order to lick the boots of Bush and Co. (Share a stage with David Horowitz and I suddenly lose most of my respect for you. When you taunt Chomsky with pseudoslang like "wazzup," you've got problems.)
  • Hitchens, apparently, has become a serious Drunk. Someone I know who works at The Nation claims that his right-whingeing rhetorical downfall began around the same time. Gives a bad name to alcoholics, he does.
  • Mike Taibbi calls Hitchens out.
  • Hmmm. I have no love for Hitchens, but based on that article, I think Mr. Taibbi really should stop being a journalist. Partly because he hates journalists, all journalists, of any kind; mostly because he can't write for shit.
  • Is anyone else sick of hearing about this fat slob and the wastes of life who join him in partisan circle jerks?
  • Why does 90% of Michael Moore criticism seem to have to mention his weight, I wonder? I've got no love for Michael Moore - he's pretty dull and humourless, really - but the endless fat jibes really seem unnecessary. Especially as I'm probably twice his size. Do fat peoples opinions not count?
  • They probably think that since they can hardly tear him apart save for claims of obfuscation, slick editing, and lying through ommision that pertain to minute portions of his work, they have to appeal to the angry conservatives by appealing to their sensibilities through making fun of fatties.
  • Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. *wrinkles brow, tries to think of a movie that isn't, fails.
  • exactly, quonset.
  • This (Possible first foreign doc in China, from rpm's first link)is rather interesting. The thing I am most interested in observing over the coming months and years is what effect this film will have on the documentary as filmic form. There is plenty of garbage floating around with the label, but seeing this gross what it did last weekend and watching the rather sickeningly saccharine trailer for America's Heart & Soul, I wonder if we won't be seeing a lot of these in four years time, and if that is the case how they will affect the race at that time. I think it was Godard who said something to the effect of "The way to critique a film is not to write about it, but to make another film".
  • Holy cow, I had no idea 90% of the reviews were positive! That's great news, given the implications. I'm still scratching my head over why nearly all the reviews I hit were negative.
  • Um - top of the head, three possibilities: -You found them through Google, so perhaps it's simply that the negative ones are each more linked-too than the positives (assuming a 50-50 split in linking to positive and negative reviews, the minority of negative ones each look more popular than the positive ones). -Alternatively, liberal papers which had hot sweaty love for it rushed out their reviews, whilst conservative ones hung back, so you're just getting the most recent. -Third possibility is also based on the bad ones being the most recent - film critics are contrary buggers who can't resist an opportunity to go against the flow, so the later the review is published, the more likely it is to contradict the general opinion. No idea if any of those hold water.
  • Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot too.
  • Its current score is 67/100 on metacritic (the site determines the 'score' reviewers from different papers give a movie. That is a pretty typical score and indicates a fair mix on the reviews. Compare it to the highest scores, and the low. Poor Bio-Dome.
  • Christopher Hitchens is an insipid wretch of a shlub who got abducted by aliens and had his brain fried. Let's not forget that the Hitch is hanging out with Andrew Sullivan these days.
  • Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot too. Why does 90% of Rush Limbaugh criticism seem to have to mention his weight, I wonder? I've got no love for Rush Limbaugh - he's pretty dull and humourless, really - but the endless fat jibes really seem unnecessary. Especially as I'm probably twice his size. Do fat peoples opinions not count? I'll shut up now
  • I dislike Moore and Limbaugh equally.
  • Do fat peoples opinions not count? On the Internet, nobody knows you're a pig. Unless you're so fat you can't reach the key with the "~" on it. Or you're on MetaFilter where "Anti-fat" is one of the Top Ten Prejudices. As for my own "shape", I could certainly hold my own Sumo Wrestling against Moore, Limbaugh, quonsar or dng. Now please repeat the question and pass the gravy.
  • A monkeyfilter sumo competition. Now that I would like to see. And participate in.
  • He used to be quite an excellent journalist and critic...but he has since turned his back on everything he used to stand for, in order to lick the boots of Bush and Co. So what you're saying is, Hitchens is the Dennis Miller of the journalistic world? Seems to me any time there's a successful undertaking, there's a backlash against it by people who feel it's hip to find faults in things others praise. Movies, books, whatever. I forget what social psychology calls it. As for wendell vs quonsar...game on! Bring jelly! I bid 50 quatloos on the newcomer! *star trek gladiator music*
  • R.L. Fridley, owner of Des Moines-based Fridley Theatres, says the controversial documentary incites terrorism. This is Fridley's roundabout way of coming out of the closet to admit that his I.Q. is significantly less than 95. If life were Metroid, I'd take him out just like I do Ridley.
  • Maybe not sumo, maybe light-saber duels... it'd be like looking at two middle-aged Star Wars Kids. No, I don't think the Internet is ready for that. (and that's saying a lot)