Newsgroup: it.discussioni.litigi
Titolo: La Critica

parlando di Fahrenheit 9/11:
"si parla di cinema, intrattenimento, evasione, finzione"
Ora lo faranno anche in tv, sottoforma di sitcom.



Muori Buttha, a uccidere i bambini sono stati i russi. 
MARK STEYN  -- The Spectator, July 10th 2004
FAHRENHEIT 9/11
You won't be surprised to hear that I disagree with Michael Moore's
thesis in Fahrenheit 9/11 (Bush is to blame for everything). But, just
for a change, I'd like to write about the film as a film, rather than
as a political tract. Because it's not just any old film, it won the
Palme d'Or at Cannes, which is a rare honour indeed, and they wouldn't
have done it just for the Bush-bashing, would they?
Dissenting from the jury's verdict, Jean-Luc Godard said, "Moore
doesn't distinguish between text and image. He doesn't know what he's
doing." I'd say he does know what he's doing, if only because it's so
obvious. For example, early in the picture, Moore shows a montage of
Bush bigwigs – Cheney, Rummy, Condi – getting made up before TV
appearances. The message here seems to be that the Bush Administration
is a bunch of phonies wearing carefully constructed artificial
identities. But don't Democrats wear make-up on TV? Al Gore certainly
did, to frightening effect in the first 2000 debate. Moore's clipfest
seems crude and pointless, unless you're simply giving the crowd an
opportunity to sneer at the physical features of Administration
officials.
After he's got (yawn) the Florida recount out of his system, we get to
the meat of the film, beginning with a sequence covering September
11th itself. Moore used the planes hitting the towers for a cheap
punchline in Bowling For Columbine. So this time he doesn't show us
anything: The screen is black, we hear only sounds, screams, thuds,
chaos, and then the darkness clears to show us the aftermath. Critics
were very appreciative. "Moore exercises admirable forbearance," wrote
Ann Hornaday in The Washington Post, "and creates one of the most
moving sequences in recent cinema."
But, when a director who's not exactly known for admirable forbearance
suddenly starts exercising it, you can't help wondering why. Later in
the movie, the old forbearance goes out the window – naked corpses of
dead Iraqi children, shattered bodies, etc. The grief of a bereaved
mother from Flint, Michigan is dwelt on at exploitative length and
Moore is in no hurry to exercise his recently acquired forbearance: if
it feels good, milk it. Much of Fahrenheit is comprised of unused TV
footage: the make-up montage is from the minute or two before the
interview begins, when the camera's rolling and they're adjusting the
lighting, etc. Well, there's plenty of unused footage from 9/11 – the
TV cameras zoomed in on bodies falling from the towers, ordinary
Americans choosing to die by taking one last gulp of air and plunging
to earth rather than burn up in the heat and hell inside.
The networks took a decision not to show that – it was too real, too
intrusive. But how strange that Michael Moore lingers on the brutal
horror of Iraq, yet when it comes to 9/11 he exercises his now famous
forbearance and blacks it out, a model of restraint. The
prettification, the artsification, the moviefication of the effect is
cleverly calculated – because he knows that if he showed us, say, the
couple holding hands as they plummeted to their deaths he'd risk
audiences reacting as viscerally as they do to the dead Iraqi kids.
What Miss Hornaday calls "one of the most moving sequences in recent
cinemas" is, in fact, an act of evasion.
That brings us to the other striking aspect of this Moore film: the
lack of Moore. In previous outings – Roger And Me, Bowling For
Columbine – Moore is the central screen presence. He's there for every
interview, the stunts are built around him, he's in shot continually.
That doesn't happen here. He hangs out at the Saudi Embassy and
pesters Congressmen, but when a typical Moore stunt eventually shows
up – the great man driving an ice-cream van round Washington reading
the Patriot Act over the speakers – it sticks out precisely because
it's at odds with the rest of the movie. You wonder why Moore is now
showing "admirable forbearance" about his use of himself.
Then we get to Iraq, and the film starts using some awkward,
unintentionally revealing footage of US troops, shot by a crew who
weren't exactly upfront about how it would be used. And the penny
drops: Moore had to ease up on his own presence in the rest of the
movie, because otherwise you'd notice his absence from the Iraq
section. He apparently had the resources to get original footage shot
there, but not to go there and shoot it himself.
Unlike Moore, I'm reluctant to bandy accusations of cowardice, as he
does to America's Congressmen. But, golly, I went to Iraq and I'm a
notorious "chickenhawk", so how dangerous can it be? Given the film's
Dubya And Me-style poster showing Bush and Moore holding hands, we
surely have a right to see the hitherto dogged doorstepper  – or at
least a body double (if such exists) - there on the ground in Baghdad
or Kirkuk to lend his signature to these scenes. Instead, without his
presence, they seem stylistically disconnected from the wearily
inevitable routines of him wandering around his hometown of Flint
wringing yet more juice from its chronic post-industrial blight. If
the mangy old pooch refuses to learn any new tricks, he could at least
apply them in a wider range of geographic locations. Next time, how
about Osama And Me?
MARK STEYN  -- The Spectator, July 10th 2004
 

 [snip]
"si parla di cinema, intrattenimento, evasione, finzione"        
  ____    _____   _____   ___    ____   ___   _____   _   _   _____   _____ 
 |  _ \  | ____| |  ___| |_ _|  / ___| |_ _| | ____| | \ | | |_   _| | ____|
 | | | | |  _|   | |_     | |  | |      | |  |  _|   |  \| |   | |   |  _|  
 | |_| | | |___  |  _|    | |  | |___   | |  | |___  | |\  |   | |   | |___ 
 |____/  |_____| |_|     |___|  \____| |___| |_____| |_| \_|   |_|   |_____|
 



Sono andato a vedere “Fahrehneit 9/11” con molti pregiudizi. Penso che
Moore rappresenti tutte le cose peggiori della sinistra americana e
italiana e che ne sia divenuto il disastroso modello. Dopo aver visto
“Bowling for Columbine” e aver trovato sgradevoli molte cose che
conteneva (la strumentalizzazione dei ragazzini feriti, la vigliaccata
della foto della bambina morta, le associazioni ridicole) malgrado la
bontà dell’intento, mi documentai molto e scoprii che molte delle cose
che Moore diceva nel film erano del tutto false. Penso che sia un
demagogo, bugiardo, violento, scorretto e trombone.
Luca Sofri, figlio di Adriano Sofri

 Penso che sia un demagogo, bugiardo, violento, scorretto e trombone.
non capisco perche' dica questo, visto che si parla di cinema,
intrattenimento, evasione, finzione.

Muori Buttha, a uccidere i bambini sono stati i russi. 
Hai stracciato il gran cazzo con questa tua verità che ti esce dalle
tasche ad ogni piè sospinto.
Nessuno sa un cazzo di niente di quella irruzione, ancora non si
trovano i corpi di una ventina di persone, ma di certo si sa che  i
russi hanno la mano pesante e il grilletto facile in queste
situazioni, come già successe a Mosca.
Ora tu sarai pure fra quelle persone che hanno messo la candelina sul
balcone, denotando una sensibilità fuori dal comune, lo ammetto, però
rimani una deficiente integrale.


ue ciao unco come stai?
 ti attendevamo con ansia.

 Luca Sofri, figlio di Adriano Sofri
Sofri č piu' trombone e ipocrita del suo direttore.
Non porta uno straccio di documentazione alle sue affermazioni, Moore si.
Chi se ne frega della sua opinione.

 ti attendevamo con ansia.
Sto bene, fra un po' parto e me ne vado a trombare in barca per tutto
il we. Tu come te la passi?

tasche ad ogni piè sospinto.
Come e' andato il primo giorno di scuola di tua figlia, Unco?
---
vorrei sapere quanti bambini sono stati uccisi effettivamente dai
terroristi: secondo me, la stragrande maggioranza sara' stata uccisa
grazie al blitz dei russi.
Buttha

 Buttha
dai, non ci credo che ha scritto questa minchiata.
sarà stato un fake.
ldf
 
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

sarà stato un fake.
hai partecipato al blitz?

Come e' andato il primo giorno di scuola di tua figlia, Unco?
Ottimo direi. In terza c un ragazzino musulmano si è fatto esplodere
vicino al banco di due studenti tamil. 



Io credo che ti stiano trollando, non possono essere così deficienti.

 ha
scritto:

ROTFL

 hai partecipato al blitz?
"quanti bambini sono stati uccisi effettivamente dai terroristi".
è un ragionamento da pizzicagnolo, che pesa tutto e lo vende un tanto
all'etto.
ldf
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 il we. Tu come te la passi?
Colgo l'occasione per dirvi che io martedě me ne vado a Barcellona, e ci
starň sei mesi.
forse nove.
--
SamaeL

 Luca Sofri, figlio di Adriano Sofri
il fatto è che TU non'hai visto
-- 
BluDiesel®
chiama il 881-928334 per la tua pubblicità su questo spazio 

all'etto.
ehm... e' proprio l'opposto: c'e' stato un blackout d'informazione
totale, a riguardo.

Io credo che ti stiano trollando, non possono essere così deficienti.
dotty mi da sempre l'impressione che stia trollando ma,
sostanzialmente, non m'importa.

forse nove.
Forse faranno un altro attentato, occhio.

 Magari non ci arrivi enanche.
rotfl, vedo che si rosica.
--
SamaeL