another take on F911

[firecat]

This one from ginmar, who is a soldier in Iraq.

I like it a lot.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/288220.html

Comments

[patgreene.livejournal.com]

I've often wished that Errol Morris -- a much more subtle and intelligent documentarian -- had done a documentary on Bush, rather than Moore.

There's a lot to scream about the current administration. The facts are bad enough.... the overly emotional tone of the movie simply makes Moore look manipulative.

[firecat]

I gather there are a few more subtle and intelligent documentaries about the same thing. I haven't seen 'em yet.

[liveavatar.livejournal.com]

I think I've figured out that we have different takes on F9/11 :) , so I won't belabor this.

My thoughts are much more with dreago, who posts here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/288220.html?thread=3135452#t3135452) in that Ginmar thread.

I'm particularly puzzled, saddened even, by Ginmar and others thinking Moore doesn't consider soldiers as individuals, because one of the things that movie particularly brought home to me was that the soldiers in Iraq are everyday young men and women like the ones I meet in the Sequoia Station shopping center, making the best of a bad business. ...Guess I ought to post that in response directly to her as well.

As for wishing Errol Morris would have made the documentary -- I adore Morris, and think his recent MacNamara documentary completely deserved its Oscar. But he's the wrong person for a mass-market documentary, exactly because he's so "cool" (read: non-overtly emotional) and fact-oriented.

[firecat]

We might not be quite as far apart on F911 as it seems. I actually kind of liked F911 overall, although a great many of my opinions about specific parts of it are critical. When I say that I like someone's post about F911, it's not necessarily because I agree with everything they say, but because I like the subjects they brought up and I like hearing their opinion about it. A lot of people are responding to the movie with specific information that needs attention.

As I just posted in ginmar's journal, one thing I praise F911 for is that it's getting a lot of people to talk to each other about the issues under consideration.

My take on the soldier interviews (from this post) was

One bit from the "horrors of war" part of the movie was a surprise to me: Some of the soldiers he interviewed had some of the most articulate and emotionally moving statements in the movie. (I don't mean I'm surprised that soldiers are articulate; I mean I'm surprised that Moore chose to portray that.) A couple of them also said some of the most frightening things - he really brought home the extremes that war brings out in people.

However, I think ginmar has a more informed opinion than I do about how well the interviews represent the range of soldiers over there.

[liveavatar.livejournal.com]

Thanks for unwrapping your response; the opened-up (what, Firecat-cut? now I'm trying to transfer LJ jargon into real life) version clarifies things considerably.

MM would be totally with you about wanting the movie to spark discussion, whether it agreed with him or not.

As I guess I want to include in my Ginmar comment, I don't see how anyone could have expected him to portray the entire range of soldiers. It wasn't what he was trying to film in the first place. Now, a movie based on Ginmar's posts, that would come closer to portraying the soldiers' world. I would pay serious money to see that movie.

[firecat]

I agree Moore couldn't have portrayed the entire range. I thought what she said about the ways he got it wrong was interesting. And I would pay serious money to see a movie based on her posts, too.