Apparently the lies in Fahrenheit 9/11 were not enough, and Michael Moore had to tell lies ABOUT the movie’s popularity:
As publicity for Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore himself could not have written better stories. And he did seem to write some of them.
Reader Interactions
26Comments
Comments are closed.
Jeff
Well, just because a lot of other movies outsold it doesn’t mean that F911 didn’t do well. It’s pretty amazing for a documentary to have the 32nd best opening for the entire year. No other documentary, I believe, has ever done as well at the box office.
I consider myself a liberal, and a pretty lefty one at that. I’m not a fan of Michael Moore — he’s far too loose with the facts when they don’t suit his narrative, and from reports I’ve read, he strikes me as a huckster making millions off a working class image.
But that doesn’t mean that F911 wasn’t a huge success. I have friends who attended the Greensboro, NC opening, and it did indeed sell out and get a standing ovation.
Jeff
I think Michael Moore is a repugnant scumbag and if he died tomorrow, I’d happily go piss on his grave.
All that being said, I don’t see where he flat-out lied.
Some optimistic exaggerations? Yes, but I don’t see any flat-out lies. I’m sure the theatres he mentions WERE sold out when he said they were, and maybe it did get a standing ovation.
Don’t get me wrong. This is the kind of stuff that the limpdicks over at Media Matters claim are “lies” all the time, but you don’t wanna use those losers as a standard.
Jeff
We’re two different Jeff’s in the first two comments. I’m the second one.
I’ll put “Jeff2” from now on.
Kimmitt
Again, there’s no contradiction there. Fahrenheit 9/11 opened on many fewer screens than those other more commercially successful movies, so it’s very possible that it sold out its opening weekend in various places and/or received a standing ovation.
A real reporter would have called up the movie theaters in the areas in question and asked if Moore’s statements could be substantiated or refuted.
Defense Guy
It was a success, made lots of money, and is still a big old pack of lies. Which only proves that some Americans will actually pay to be lied to.
Dr.Jack Shepard
Iain Hook’s Murder: Dr. Jack Shepard and The Socialist Worker London Newspaper agree on the covered up April 2, 2005
visit: http://www.shepardusgov.com/dedicated/Iain.html
Dr. Jack Shepard says:” Why was the Targeted Assassination of Iain Hook a top British UN official by the Israeli Defense Force covered up by prime Minister Tony Blair?”
The Socialist Worker London Newspaper headlines say:
Iain Hook: Blair buries evidence of murder by Israel
April 2, 2005
by Socialist Worker
Tony Blair’s government is involved in a cover-up over the killing of the British United Nations (UN) official Iain Hook, who was shot in the back by an Israeli soldier in 2002.
Last week the foreign office flatly refused to release the information it holds on Iain
Nikki
And he did seem to write some of them.
Joey
Sorry, but selling out one or two showings right after the film came out doesn’t prove jack. As the article proves, the movie WAY underperformed in the markets Moore claimed it was doing great in, and it actually did very, very well in the “blue” urban areas it was expected to do well in.
Kimmitt
As the article proves, the movie WAY underperformed in the markets Moore claimed it was doing great in,
He doesn’t even begin to demonstrate that Fahrenheit 9/11 underperformed for a documentary.
I’m sorry, but this is crap.
Rocky Smith
First it would have to be an ACTUAL DOCUMENTARY. Real documentaries are filled with FACTS.
Mr Furious
York’s article is complete crap. Looking after the fact at the total recepts for a movie a year later and hyperanalyzing the breakdowns, declaring that it”underperformed” in certain areas based on ridiculous extrapolation, and that makes Moore a liar is a joke.
The film may very well have done all the things Moore claims (sell-out, ovations, etc) and York offers no evidence to the contrary. Even if the film did “underperform” over the long run, according to the averages, this is not a measure of opening weekend, which is what Moore was talking about. And the dramatic “overperformance” in the top markets would drag the other numbers down over the film’s run. In other words, just because people in NYC flocked to the film and boosted the numbers, it doesn’t mean less people saw it in Dallas, it just means less of a percentage did.
York’s the one with the “myth.” Oh, and could one of you clowns point me to an accurate list of the film’s “lies”, I keep hearing about them, but once again, none of you guys are giving any examples…
Sav
There ya go Furious. Enjoy.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Ron Phelps
It wasn’t Lord of the Rings but it made him a cool 100 million. And I liked it.
Al
It opened on like 11 screens, which means 2 opposing things: 1. big deal that all 4 screens sold out, and 2. big deal that it didn’t make as much money as the 200,000-screen-opening Anchorman made on its first weekend.
F9/11 is 219th on IMDB’s list of the 325 (?) all-time highest grossing movies. Anchorman and Starsky and Hutch are not. It’s not Star Wars, but it’s certainly not Ishtar, either.
Sean P
I really don’t get this effort to minimize F911’s box office success. It really doesn’t surprise me that the film did noticeably better in Blue America than Red America, but look at it this way: If the films box office in Blue America had been equal to its grosses in Red America, it still would have grossed at least $50 million — which is an astonishingly good number for a movie that cost $2-3 million to produce. As it is, the movie made almost $120 million, more than five times greater than any film that has claimed to be a documentary.
As far as its $23.9 million opening, remember: F911 opened in only 867 theatres, while Starsky & Hutch, Barbetshop 2, et al. opened on over 3000. F911’s “per theatre” average was over $27,000, which was the best per theatre average for any wide release in 2005 (even better than Shrek 2).
Don’t misunderstand this post as a defense of Moore or his politics. I tired of Moore long before his “Stupid White Men” books and, as a vehicle for changing the course of the 2004 election, F911 failed miserably. But as a vehicle for lining Moore’s wallet, it was a phenomenal success.
Aaron
F 9/11 made it to Taiwan’s movie theaters. What’s sad is Team America did not.
Still waiting for it to come out on video.
Andrew e.
The indignant hoo-ha thrown at MM so far outpaces his cultural importance it boggles the mind. Many liberals will certainly agree with this or that part of his arguments, but it’s not exactly like too many people on the Left worship the guy. Not like conservative icons like Rush, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, ad nauseum- all rhetorical bomb-throwers who daily have more influence over national talking-points then Moore could ever wish to have.
‘Michael Moore’ is a projection, an impotant boogeyman. Randall Terry (God help us all) has more influence over the American culture then Moore. James Dobson, ferchrisakes! But everybody jump on the fat slob! He’s a talented filmmaker with the ernestness and analytical skills of a World Studies grad student and a knack for self promotion, but that’s about it.
Just because we’re continually told he’s important doesn’t make him important.
Sav
I remember that time when Randall Terry joined former president Bush at the Republican National Convention, and the time when half the Republican Congress went to James Dobson’s latest political film and gave him a standing ovation at the conclusion.
No wait, I’m thinking of someone else and a different party.
Just….can’t….remember….who….exactly.
wild bird
I,ve been reading the book MICHEAL MOORE IS A BIG FAT STUPID WHITEMAN and it states plainly that BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE is a complete fruad and a lie and it should never have even been nominated for BEST DOCUMENTRY since it isnt and he must have been pulling his beard out when he did,nt get nominated for FARINHEHT 9-11 i guess the accdaemy judges did,nt want to make the same blunder as in 2003
HH
http://tvh.rjwest.com/archives/005220.html
Gregory Markle
I highly doubt that theater records for the release of Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will” are available – it would be great to see F911 rated against another pure propaganda film. “Triumph of the Will” is a masterpiece of filmmaking but just like F911 it requires an awfully blinkered world-view to actually accept it’s message as presented.
carla
Sorry, but selling out one or two showings right after the film came out doesn’t prove jack. As the article proves, the movie WAY underperformed in the markets Moore claimed it was doing great in, and it actually did very, very well in the “blue” urban areas it was expected to do well in.
The film was either sold out or it wasn’t. According to actual news reports it in fact was. That doesn’t sound like “underperforming” to me.
F9/11 was an excellent film. I didn’t agree with every part of it politically…but it was extremely well done and made valid and important points.
I’m curious as to how many of these commentors who are it’s detractors actually saw the film.
Andrew e.
Hell, Sav, I wonder what kind of access Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter had at the Republican National Convention? Or if any Republicans lawmakers have either heard Sean Hannity daily on the radio, seen him daily on cable, or read any of his bestselling books? And James Dobson certainly understands that access to power means more then being seen on the teevee at a National Convention. Oh, and care to guess how many radio stations carry Dobson’s Focus on the Family broadcasts every day?
My point is not that Michael Moore doesn’t have a certain amount of credibility within Leftist circles- he does. But it ain’t THAT much and the non-stop whining and bitching about Moore just becomes absurd after a while.
And comparing Moore to Leni Riefenstahl? Leni: ultra-nationalist, paid by the govt. to make the govt. look good. Moore: anti-American, paid by the market to make the govt. look bad. But as long as the Moore=Nazi meme sticks in your head…..
If you really want to see what propaganda looks like check this out: http://www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/MAF/AdCampaign
Now THAT’S propaganda!
wavemaker
Well Furious, one indication that the movie was not NON-FICTION was that Moore himself pulled it out of the documentary category for Oscar. Think that was a strategic move?
Michael Moore made a good film. It was good as fiction (and particularly insidious at that). But it is fairly clear from watching Moore for the last few years that he is more interested in his own celebritization than he is in the truth.
Mr Furious
Wavemaker,
Yeah, actually I think it was strategy. At the time it was portrayed by some as Moore going for the “big prize”. Why settle for Best Documentary when you could go for Best Picture. It that was his only motivation, perhaps that was an overreach…but I can respect Moore’s desire to further his statement and try to make the most of the film.
What I now understand is that the rules are different between categories, and keeping the film in the documentary category prevented either the film’s release on video or for television before the election, and Moore obviously thought getting the film out for a second release before November was important.
A quick google search bears this out:
neil
Does being nominated for Best Documentary rule out being nominated for Best Picture? If not, then what is the basis for the claim that invalidating the picture’s eligibility for Best Documentary was nothing but a grab at Best Picture?
Since National Review is the author, it seems like they’re assuming that Hollywood would fall all over themselves to give it some Oscar, any Oscar! Is there really anything to it than that? For what it’s worth, the only explanation I’ve ever heard is that he wanted to put it on TV and was sacrificing his Oscar for that.