It is the nature of the net that just about the time you think, “there ought to be …,” there is. Here‘s a site with a collection of films relevant to the election. It would be better were there more that were clearly from the other side. Ideas?
-
Archives
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- May 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
-
Meta
I’m a little disappoited in this list. Including such debunked films as Farenheit 9/11 (especially when Slate debunks a liberal publication) implies that the truth isn’t the issue. Why not encourage people to watch certain commercials asking about Kerry’s behavior in and after Viet Nam?
Here’s the problem:
“It would be better were there more that were clearly from the other side.”
I thought there was only one side to the truth?
Well it isn’t from either “side”, but seeing the same tactics used in new york recently I definitely recommend “the miami model” http://ftaaimc.org/miamimodel
Why would I want to watch *films* before voting? What’s next, a list of songs to listen to before voting?
WTF ever happened to reading?
reading is fine, but if you’re still skeptical, may i suggest the battle of algiers? i caught it at the alamo drafthouse in austin but it’s now on vhs.
REEL TERRORISM
Please do a two minute Google search before you claim that Hitchens told the truth on anything. That factual points claimed in that Slate article have been largely debunked. You’re welcome to agree or disagree with his opinions or beliefs but the “F9/11 has been debunked” claim is rather harder to support with facts.
Hitchens made stuff up to support his position – as he has been known to do. The quotes that he gets worked up about have been modified from those in the movie, and his conclusions are … shall we say, rather harder to draw with any rigor from what the movie actually says.
You mean Iraq wasn’t an oasis of peace, or that the buildings in the background (that imply Iraq has a long history, or that it has prospered in spite of UN sanctions) aren’t Saddam’s palaces? Next you’re gonna tell me that at least one of the senators Moore cornered (trying to send the senate’s families to the front) never said he has close family currently serving in Iraq? Or that Bush’s comment about terrorists (made on the golf course) was about terrorists other than Palestinians? Did Hitchens “make up” the part about Saddam advertising he would pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers handsomely? If so, why do I remember the BBC reporting that Saddam paid $25,000 to suicide bombers (while Iraq was under UN sanctions)? Oh, and do UN sanctions (and UN-backed military action that prevented Saddam’s forces from entering parts of the country) put qualifiers on total and complete sovereignty?
Thinking about it, did Saddam try to shoot down our planes (who were patrolling a UN-mandated no-fly zone) on a regular basis for ten years? If not, why did Clinton keep shooting cruise missiles into the country as retribution? Wouldn’t that alone (Saddam’s repeated acts of war) justify the war under international law? Oh, and why do other media outlets report that Saddam did try to assasinate Bush I after he was president?
What about the other points, such as the media’s willingness to forgive Clinton, but not Bush. Do you think that Clinton saying “we need to stop these terrorists, watch this drive” would be looked at the same way as what Moore tried to interpret Bush as? And, last, what about Moore’s repeated contradictions. Those clearly aren’t made up, since anyone who watches the movie can point them out when asked.
Lessig doesn’t have to post both points of view, since this is his site and he has no equal opportunity obligation. However, using poorly-done hack jobs hurts his standing in my opinion. Sorry, but it was Moore who made stuff up, like he’s known to do, to support his untenable position.
It’s a claim often repeated by critics because Moore doesn’t show Saddam’s evil. It’s hardly necessary to do so – everyone knows it already, because it’s been hammered in the press for years and years. Moore was showing the story that wasn’t brought to the US people by the press – that there were real people underneath the bombs whose faces were not seen in the press, whose stories were not told.
Huh? “Wag the Dog” anyone? Whitewater? The blue dress? Bush telling whoppers in the 2000 election debate while the press focuses on Gore’s trivial misrecollection of dates? Which media would this be?
And look up the quote about Saddam trying to kill Americans which leads to a couple of paragraphs of riff by Hitchens. It doesn’t say what Hitchens claims. Sure, it’s a narrowly focused statement that can be read with innuendo much wider than actually stated – one of Moore’s techniques. But it’s the same techniques the right have been using in their propaganda for a decade.
The interesting question is the double standard here. If the US had held the White House up to the same level of scrutiny, there would have been no need for an F9/11 film.
There may be more rigorous treatments out there. One has to ask oneself what is effective, and what is not. Perhaps it’s time to consider getting off the high horse of rigor and go with what works.
Lotharson:
So, in other words, there weren’t any facts wrong in the Slate article, only hypotheticals (would the media forgive Clinton, etc.)
And, you’re right, the media didn’t forgive Clinton. In fact, that’s one of the ideas behind Blinded By The Right (endorsed by CNN, which I believe isn’t trying to ‘fess up to being blinded by the right, …)
“Forgive” was a bad choice of words. The original article, of course didn’t use the word.
Max, for an initial example of incorrect facts try this quote:
Now look up what the film actually says:
Moore backs that up with various sources at this page.
Is this distinction important? Could be too subtle for some. On the other hand, maybe that subtlety matters when it’s about going to unprovoked war.
In other words, if you split enough hairs, you’ll find a smoking pea-shooter. The wording may not be perfect, but it’s a far cry from an intentional misrepresentation.
Besides, Moore is wrong. Iraq may have never targeted US targets on US soil, but Iraqi SAMs were shot at US planes (patrolling a UN-imposed no-fly zone) for over ten years. Those count as attacks, or at least threats of attacks, on America. The SAMs were not diplomatic gestures. They were definitely meant to kill Americans.
/* Is this distinction important? Could be too subtle for some. On the other hand, maybe that subtlety matters when it�s about going to unprovoked war.
*/
But the war wasn’t unprovoked. Bush had quite a few documents in his hand when he invaded Iraq:
Since the US had authorization to use military force to enforce the earlier resolution, the invasion couldn’t be considered “unprovoked.” Especially considering previous military actions that Clinton used to enforce the resolution (Clinton was the only other President who ever had a real opportunity to enforce the resolution):
Diplomatic efforts, such as the oil for food program and heavy sanctions never produced results.
Taken as a whole, anything short of an invasion wouldn’t have produced lasting results, since everything short of an invasion had already been tried.
It’s too bad this discussion has devolved into a troll fest over the merits of Fahreinheit 9/11, which certainly deserves being seen, as long as you bring your filters with you.
Larry, I believe that you don’t see films from the right on this list becasue the right argues from positons of ideology and passionately held beliefs rather than from a set of facts that one can assay under the camera’s lens. Thus, they’ll resort to misleading 30-second Swift Boat attack ads, but leave dreary 90-minute documentaries to the left. They’ll claim that “Outfoxed” is a smear job and that CNN and CBS are the real pillars of media bias, but if they ever tried to actually reduce that thesis to a film narrative, they wouldn’t have enough material to support their claims.
Did someone say, “sound and fury, signifying nothing”?
Mr. Lessig,
Having looked over the list (the complete list – New Films and Classics) it�s clear that you made a mistake in your post. The word �more� should be replaced with �any�. Of the overtly political movies there are none that represent a view other than left or center left. I�m not saying that means the films are inherently wrong or misleading. It�s just how I would categorize them.
I haven�t seen most of the films on the �New Films� page, but I plan to. One that I have seen and would highly recommend is the �The Fog of War�. Fascinating and thought provoking.
The one that I�m most looking forward to is �Team America: World Police�. I expect it to savage both the left and the right.
Ideas: �The Killing Fields�, �the man who knew� and �Saving Private Ryan�.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00004RF82/qid=1094877545/sr=8-1/ref=pd_cps_1/103-7228312-8647065?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001NBLVI/qid=1094878507/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7228312-8647065?v=glance&s=dvd
JD – I guess it depends on the issue and one�s position relative to that issue, but I find that the left more frequently argues from a position of ideology and belief than the right. This is a definite problem with both sides of our current public discourse. Each side is doing its damnedest to push their points on an issue without ever addressing valid concerns or feedback from the other side.
The hyperbole is so out of control that I have come to the point where I despise both the far left and far right.
P.S Very surprised to see that �The Quiet American� was not on their list.
I agree with ZWilson — This link posted by Mr. Lessig is comprised of literally NOTHING but left-leaning works.
Now, I realize that, for the far left, the left-middle LOOKS like the right, it just ain’t so.
Moore is a self-promoting, lying sack of fecal matter, always has been, and always will be. Yes, he might spout something forth with a grain of truth somewhere in it, but you have to sift through some mighty big piles of total ordure to locate the grain.
Mr. Lessig, if you read this, I’ll support you 100% on the copyfight, as I have been working with computers for more than 25 years now, and have long since seen the Emperor’s Tattered Clothes. Your political leanings, however, suggest a marked foolishness. Neither the left nor the right is going to do what is needed to solve the Copyfight unless the people ram it down their throats, as both the bastards are beholden to the doomed IP Powers That Be.
This is why I laugh at fools who protest the WTO and the FTAA and so on and so forth — these idiots need to wake up and pay attention to **WIPO**, not the WTO. THERE lies the future of the economy. They are gonna have everything sown up for their own use in perpetuity before those fools even realize there is anything to be had.
It is almost inarguable that Bush’s preemptive Foreign Policy is going to be far better at fending off terrorists than the Dems “leave them alone and they will leave us alone” attitiude. It’s not gonna happen, they hate us not because we have done jack to them, but because we are wealthy and capable. This is no different from the typical left-bozo who hates rich people not because of anything they did to them but because they are rich in the first place.
Bush is going to win, not in a squeaker but a landslide, and you can quote me on that.
I’m going to vote for him, not because I like him (I hate his guts, as a matter of fact, just because of the type of family he comes from), but because the Dems are too #$^$%^&$% stupid to figure out that you don’t appeal to the middle by putting forth the most liberal twit the senate currently has in it, and backing him up with the #4 most liberal twit the Senate has to offer.
You win the presidency by appealing to the *middle*, not to the ends. Get a clue, you fools. The ultraleft has hijacked the Dems far more completely than the Religious Right ever had control of the Reps.
All of this nonsense about Moore’s F9/11 being debunked really amazes me. All of the mistakes pointed out in the film are either the result of minutia, literalist simple-minded republican misinterpretation, editing effects to propel the story, or – just as often – blatant lies on the part of partisan republicans – like the Swift Boat Liars, for instance.