For those who have seen FARENHEIT 911

Hmm... To do Josie's homework or not to do Josie's homework...?

Ummm....

Nah.

FARENHYPE 911 - was better, it counters Michael Moore's film. Although I did find the other interesting enough...until Farenhype.

Oh, and that's Fahrenheit by the way.

1.) Compared with other documentaries you have seen from directors other than Michael Moore, do you feel this film stayed within the norms of documentary film making?

No. Moore's obvious agenda was aggressive, if not pedestrian. Most docus are to edify/educate/enlighten people on a particular subject. Moore's was to shove a misleading political agenda down the viewer's throats.

2.) Did the music and editing create more of an ‘entertainment’ feel than the average documentary?

Yes, but it wasn't too bad.

3.) Do you think this film is completely factual?

LOL. Hell no and, like most of Moore's works (films AND books), it's credibility has been ripped to shreds. He's already been taken to task countless times for his gross distortion of facts in an attempt to mislead the public.
In other words, he's a complete liar but seems to be comfortable with it.


4.) If you saw/had seen this documentary before the election, would it/did it change your vote?

No. I wasn't going to vote for Bush anyway. This film preached to the choir only. I doubt anyone with a brain and capacity for logical reasoning bought into any of its crap. If it swayed anyone's opinion, then they shouldn't have been voting in the first place.

5.) Has Michael Moore created a new genre . . . the documercial . . . a documentary that sells a product?

No. He's merely making glamorous propaganda. It's propaganda in it's newest, flashiest form, but it's been around for ages.

1.) Compared with other documentaries you have seen from directors other than Michael Moore, do you feel this film stayed within the norms of documentary film making?

yes and no. it retaines the documentary style in how it structurally presents its thesis, but its primary flaw is that it also pushed (obliterated?) the ethical boundaries of editing non-fiction (in my opinion). one would come away with a much different perception were one able to view his raw footage in context.

2.) Did the music and editing create more of an ‘entertainment’ feel than the average documentary?

i think the music was a big strength, and it's shrewd on his part to recognize the appeal of music-driven images in his key demographic, the mtv generation.

3.) Do you think this film is completely factual?

um, no. i think the seeds of facts are present in some amounts, but they've been distorted and colored.
4.) If you saw/had seen this documentary before the election, would it/did it change your vote?

i did, and it didn't.
5.) Has Michael Moore created a new genre . . . the documercial . . . a documentary that sells a product?

no, aside from selling himself, michael moore sells cosmetic dissent. as a documentary filmmaker, i find him unremarkable.