Flight 93, United 93, Fahrenheit 9/11 and controversy about F 9/11 Wikipedia pages revised

Amending our Terms of Use:
 Please comment on a proposed amendment regarding undisclosed paid editing.
 [ Help with translations! ] 
close
Flight 93 (TV film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For the 2006 theatrical film whose original title was Flight 93, see United 93 (film).



[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.




This article consists almost entirely of a plot summary. It should be expanded to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context.  (November 2013)




This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations.  (November 2013)




This article needs additional citations for verification.  (November 2013)


Not to be confused with I Missed Flight 93.

Flight 93
Flight93poster.JPG
Theatre poster

Directed by
Peter Markle
Produced by
Clara George
Written by
Nevin Schreiner
Starring
Jeffrey Nordling
Ty Olsson
Kendall Cross
Brennan Elliott
 Monee Michael
Music by
Velton Ray Bunch
Cinematography
Mark Irwin
Editing by
Scott Boyd
Release dates
30 January 2006 (USA)
Running time
89 minutes
Country
Canada
 USA
Language
English
 Arabic
 Japanese
Flight 93 is a 2006 television film, directed by Peter Markle, which chronicles the events aboard United Airlines Flight 93 during the September 11 attacks. It premiered January 30, 2006 on the A&E Network and was re-broadcast several times throughout 2006.
The film focused heavily on eight passengers, namely Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, Tom Burnett, Jeremy Glick, Lauren Grandcolas, Donald Greene, Nicole Miller, and Honor Elizabeth Wainio. It features small appearances from many other passengers, namely Donald Peterson and his wife, Jean, and also from flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw.
The film was rated PG-13 for some violence and emotional depiction of the hijack situation. The DVD version was released on June 26, 2006.
Plot[edit]


 This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise. (November 2013)
On the morning of September 11, 2001, First officer LeRoy Homer Jr. gets dressed in his F.A.A. official uniform, kisses his wife and leaves for work. The terrorist ringleader Ziad Jarrah shaves in his hotel room and then leaves for Newark International Airport.
At the airport, the passengers and crew board United Airlines Flight 93 bound for San Francisco, along with the hijackers. Shortly after boarding, Flight 93 is delayed for 41 minutes because of the high volume of traffic, as the other three soon-to-be hijacked flights take off.
Air traffic controllers monitoring all current flights notice that American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767, has taken a southern turn toward New York City and hijacker Mohamed Atta makes a threatening transmission from the flight deck. Shortly after, Flight 11 descends into Lower Manhattan and crashes into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, though air traffic controllers are not aware of it. After Flight 11 crashes, United Airlines Flight 175 begins to descend and turn toward New York City as well. Air traffic controllers then realize they are dealing with a hijacking. Shortly after, American Airlines Flight 77 is hijacked. The traffic controllers alert the U.S. Air Force, who debate whether or not to shoot down all suspected hijacked flights. The air traffic controllers and Air Force then watch as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower of the World Trade Center on live television.
When word of the planes hitting the World Trade Center reaches Flight 93, the Captain asks if this is true. After the seatbelt sign is turned off, Ahmed al-Nami assembles a fake bomb out of clay and plastic during breakfast, then the other three hijackers hold off the flight attendants, and wrestle their way into the cockpit and overpower the pilots, turning the plane around, which is now over Ohio, toward Pennsylvania. By this time, Flight 77 has crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. Footage of the South Tower collapsing in New York is also seen on TV at the home of one of the victims' family. (The South Tower actually collapsed while the fight onboard Flight 93 was occurring.)
To the growing consternation of Ben Sliney and his staff, coordination with the Air Force is haphazard and there are not enough planes ready, or armed, to respond to an in-air hijacking. Sliney ultimately decides to shut down all airspace in the United States and ground every flight.
The hijackers do not prevent anyone from making phone calls through the onboard phone system. After hearing about the planes crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the passengers and crew understand that if they do nothing, they will also reach a target, and eventually elect to storm the cockpit and attempt to retake the plane. The passengers make final phone calls to family in which they declare their intentions. The remaining crew assemble what makeshift weapons they can: cutlery, wine bottles, a fire extinguisher and hot water.
Learning that one of the passengers can fly a plane (although he has not flown a commercial aircraft), the group pin their hopes on his being able at least to control the plane. Todd Beamer is seen calling Lisa Jefferson, and he disconnects the phone and says, "You ready?.... Let's roll!" They start their counter-attack, running down the aisle with a food cart, and overpowering Ahmed al-Nami, who is outside the cockpit. After boiling water is thrown at him, Ahmed is killed by Mark Bingham with a blow to the head with the hot water container. Having seen this, Saeed al-Ghamdi, Ziad and Ahmed al-Haznawi prepare for invasion by the passengers and debate whether to take the flight down as the jet speeds back over Pennsylvania.
Ziad shakes the plane violently to throw the passengers off balance, but nonetheless they manage to smash the door with the food cart. As the passengers wrestle with two hijackers to get in the cockpit, Ziad puts the plane into a nosedive and flips the plane upside down as the passengers finally gain entrance into the cockpit. The plane misses a private propeller plane, a dragline crane, and a barn, then crashes through an old strip mine. A man working on his tractor sees Flight 93 roar over him on its side, and then it shows the plane rolling upside down as the man backs out of his barn to get a better view. After this, neither the plane nor the assault on the cockpit are seen anymore in the film. ATC is seen and heard desperately trying to call Flight 93, and Lisa Jefferson, with the phone still up to her ear, sits in shock. As the sounds of the ATC trying to call Flight 93 are heard in the background, the film shows a black mushroom cloud rising up over the barn owned by the man who just a few moments before saw Flight 93 crash. Footage of the first responders arriving are shown, as they look for the plane, thinking it "landed in the woods" because "first they thought it was in the hole, but, there's nothing in there." Footage of the North Tower collapsing is seen on TV as the families of the victims comfort each other.
Time moves on as the ground where the plane crashed recovers (the crater was refilled). When the crash crater is no longer visible, the following text is shown:

On September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 was one of the four planes hijacked in midair. Three planes succeeded in hitting their targets. With great courage and resolve, the passengers and crew of Flight 93 prevented their plane from reaching its likely target, the White House or the Capitol Building. This film is dedicated to the passengers and crew of Flight 93, and to their families.
This text is followed by the names of the passengers and crew of Flight 93.
See also[edit]
United 93 (film)
The Flight That Fought Back
I Missed Flight 93
External links[edit]
Flight 93 at the Internet Movie Database
Official website by A&E


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United Airlines Flight 93







United93CrashSite May06.jpg





























































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Films directed by Peter Markle


















 


Categories: A&E shows
American television films
Aviation films
Films set on airplanes
Films based on the September 11 attacks
Films shot in Vancouver
United Airlines Flight 93
2006 television films
Pinewood Studios films











Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk










Read

Edit

View history
















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikimedia Shop

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools










Print/export





Languages
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
日本語
Polski
Português
Русский
Suomi
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last modified on 1 February 2014 at 23:39.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
 Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   








Amending our Terms of Use:
 Please comment on a proposed amendment regarding undisclosed paid editing.
 [ Help with translations! ] 
close
United 93 (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Flight 93 (film)" redirects here. For the telefilm, see Flight 93 (TV film).
Not to be confused with I Missed Flight 93.

United 93
United93.jpg
Theatrical release poster

Directed by
Paul Greengrass
Produced by
Paul Greengrass
Tim Bevan
Eric Fellner
Lloyd Levin
Written by
Paul Greengrass
Starring
Khalid Abdalla
Christian Clemenson
Cheyenne Jackson
 J.J. Johnson
Sarmed al-Samarrai
David Alan Basche
Music by
John Powell
Cinematography
Barry Ackroyd
Editing by
Clare Douglas
Richard Pearson
Christopher Rouse
Studio
StudioCanal
Working Title
SKE Entertainment
Distributed by
Universal Pictures (US)
United International Pictures (UK)
Buena Vista International (France)
Release dates
April 28, 2006

Running time
110 minutes[1]
Country
United States
 United Kingdom
 France
Language
English
Budget
$15 million[2]
Box office
$76,286,096[2]
United 93 is a 2006 drama film written, co-produced, and directed by Paul Greengrass that chronicles events aboard United Airlines Flight 93,[3] which was hijacked during the September 11 attacks. The film attempts to recount with as much veracity as possible (there is a disclaimer that some imagination had to be used) and in real time (from the flight's takeoff) what has come to be known in the United States as an iconic moment. According to the filmmakers, the film was made with the cooperation of all of the passengers' families.[4]
United 93 premiered on April 26, 2006 at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City, a festival founded to celebrate New York City as a major film making center and to contribute towards the long-term recovery of Lower Manhattan.[5] Several family members of the passengers aboard the flight attended the premiere to show their support.
The film opened nationwide in North America on April 28, 2006. Ten percent of the gross from the three-day opening weekend was promised toward a donation to create a memorial for the victims of Flight 93.[6] United 93 grossed $31.4 million in the United States, and $76.3 million worldwide.[2][7]


Contents  [hide]
1 Plot
2 Cast
3 Production
4 Historical background
5 Reception 5.1 Critical response
5.2 US top ten lists
5.3 Accolades
6 Home media
7 See also
8 References
9 External links

Plot[edit]
On the morning of September 11, four Islamist terrorists and al-Qaeda members Ziad Jarrah, Ahmed al-Haznawi, Saeed al-Ghamdi and Ahmed al-Nami prepare for their upcoming suicide attack on United 93. Jarrah who is the ring-leader leaves one hotel with al-Haznawi in New York City after they pray to Allah while al-Ghamdi and al-Nami leave another New York City hotel. The quartet arrive at Newark Liberty International airport and get past security without fail. They wait at a gate with their future victims including Tom Burnett, Todd Beamer & Honor Elizabeth Wainio. Mark Bingham narrowly catches his connection to San Francisco and is the last passenger to board. After 40 minutes of delay the plane takes off with 33 people including the hijackers on board.
Elsewhere at Cleveland Control Center the newly promoted manager Ben Sliney and his staff are dealing with a plane that is apparently hijacked American Flight 11 from Boston headed for Los Angeles after hearing Muhammad Atta saying on the radio "We have some planes". Flight 11 at 8.46 am crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Centre much to Ben Sliney's and his staff's horror. Soon after another plane United 175 also from Boston to Los Angeles too is hijacked and the plane crashing into the south tower of the World Trade Centre at 9.03 am is witnessed from those at the control tower of Newark Liberty International airport. Ben and his staff discover they are dealing with several hijackings and orders the army to be on the lookout for Flight 77 which is also hijacked. Despite their efforts Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon which is live on CNN. Ben then has the air-space closed and orders all flights leaving and entering the United States to be grounded.
On United 93 Jarrah and his fellow terrorists wait for the right moment to begin their assault. After al-Haznawi returns from a toilet wearing an artificial bomb he made around his torso, al-Ghamdi grabs hold of one of the air hostesses Debbie Welsh. At this point the passengers frantically retreat to the rear of the plane after al-Haznawi stabs a passenger and displays the "bomb". Jarrah and al-Ghamdi threaten Debbie to let them into the cockpit and "nobody will be hurt". Despite this captain Jason Dahl and co-pilot Leroy Homer are stabbed to death by al-Ghamdi and he then kills Debbie to presumably silence her. Jarrah and al-Ghamdi take over the cockpit with Jarrah flying the plane. Jarrah turns the plane back to the East Coast causing the passengers to think they are going back to the airport. However after another flight attendant Sandra Bradshaw sees the bodies of Debbie and the pilots, the passengers discovering the Pentagon had been attacked from their families on airphones and Jarrah flying the plane at low attidue they discover the plane is hijacked and is going to crash. The passengers decide to retake the plane with Donald Freeman Greene volunteering to fly the plane as he had experience flying aircraft. The passengers after making final calls to friends and families wait for the moment to save the plane. Some of the male passengers advance forward and kill both al-Haznawi and al-Nami. Seeing this al-Ghamdi orders Jarrah to put the plane down, knowing they'll never reach their intended target the White House/Capitol. Despite this the passengers break down the door with a food cart and battle both hijackers over the controls. Jarrah though puts the plane into a nosedive and the aircraft goes upside down before finally stalling and crashes into Pennsylvania killing everyone on board.
Cast[edit]
Khalid Abdalla as Ziad Jarrah
Christian Clemenson as Tom Burnett
Cheyenne Jackson as Mark Bingham
J.J. Johnson as Captain Jason Dahl
Sarmed al-Samarrai as Saeed al-Ghamdi
David Alan Basche as Todd Beamer
Omar Berdouni as Ahmed al-Haznawi
Jamie Harding as Ahmed al-Nami
Gary Commock as First Officer LeRoy Homer, Jr.
Nancy McDoniel as Lorraine G. Bay
Trish Gates as Sandra Bradshaw
Starla Benford as Wanda Anita Green
Opal Alladin as CeeCee Lyles
Polly Adams as Deborah Welsh
Erich Redman as Christian Adams
Simon Poland as Alan Anthony Beaven
Trieste Kelly Dunn as Deora Frances Bodley
Jodie Lynne McClintock as Marion R. Britton
Richard Bekins as William Joseph Cashman
Marceline Hugot as Georgine Rose Corrigan
Michael J. Reynolds as Patrick Joseph Driscoll
Rebecca Schull as Patricia Cushing
Ray Charleson as Joseph DeLuca
 John Rothman as Edward P. Felt
Denny Dillon as Colleen Fraser
Susan Blommaert as Jane Folger
Peter Marinker as Andrew Garcia
Peter Hermann as Jeremy Glick
Tara Hugo as Kristin White Gould
Kate Jennings Grant as Lauren Grandcolas
David Rasche as Donald Freeman Greene
Lorna Dallas as Linda Gronlund
Daniel Sauli as Richard Guadagno
Masato Kamo as Toshiya Kuge (久下 季哉?)
Libby Morris as Hilda Marcin
Liza Colón-Zayas as Waleska Martinez
Olivia Thirlby as Nicole Carol Miller
Corey Johnson as Louis J. Nacke, II
Tom O'Rourke as Donald Peterson
Becky London as Jean Headley Peterson
Chip Zien as Mark Rothenberg
Leigh Zimmerman as Christine Snyder
Joe Jamrog as John Talignani
Chloe Sirene as Honor Elizabeth Wainio
John Kaplun as Air Traffic Controller (Self)

Production[edit]
The film was the first Hollywood feature to draw its narrative directly from the September 11, 2001 attacks. Passengers were portrayed in the film mostly by professional, but relatively unknown, actors (Tom Burnett, for instance, is played by Christian Clemenson, who has since appeared on Boston Legal and CSI: Miami). The roles of one of the flight attendants, the two pilots, and many other airline personnel were filled by actual airline employees. Some participants in the real-life events play themselves, notably FAA operations manager Ben Sliney.
The dialogue, which was mostly improvised during rehearsals Greengrass held with the cast, was based on face-to-face interviews between actors and families of those they portray. Almost none of the passengers in the film are referred to by their names. Their identities remain anonymous, emphasizing the group effort over any individual heroics (and also portraying the fact that strangers on an airplane would not know one another's names). Much of the dialogue uses technical authenticity rather than theatrical embellishments, such as talk about if a plane has "Squawked 7500." During production, the actors playing the crew and the passengers of the flight were put in separate hotels from the actors portraying the hijackers, even eating their meals separately, ostensibly to create an air of antagonism in the film between the two groups.
Filming took place on a 20-year-old reclaimed Boeing 757, formerly operated by MyTravel Airways, at Pinewood Studios near London from October until December 2005. The cockpit was built by Flightdeck solutions. The location was chosen both for its financial incentives and to shield actors from unwanted public scrutiny they might have received in the U.S.[8] Action was filmed with handheld cameras, chosen for their versatility on the close-quarter sets and to create a sense of immediacy. Exterior airport sequences were shot on location at Newark Liberty International Airport, while interiors were shot back in England at London Stansted Airport. A few scenes were also shot in Washington, D.C. and Boston. In addition, an opening sequence set in Afghanistan was shot in Morocco, but it was cut from the film before release.
The title was changed from Flight 93 to United 93 in March 2006, to differentiate it from the A&E TV film. Shortly thereafter, the film was given an R rating by the Motion Picture Association of America for "language, and some intense sequences of terror and violence."[9] Universal Pictures appealed this rating, but it was rejected. The film was released in U.S. cinemas on April 28, 2006. It opened second in the weekend box office behind RV, but it netted a slightly higher per-screen average.
Initial screenings ended with the closing credits line "America's War on Terror had begun." This was replaced in the release version with '"Dedicated to the memory of all those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001."[10]
After trailers for the film began circulating in cinemas, there were calls for Universal Studios to pull them, due to the upset and surprise caused to some audience members.[11] One theatre in Manhattan pulled the trailer after audience complaints.[6]
The Iraqi-born, London-based actor Sarmed al-Samarrai, who plays a hijacker in the film, was reportedly denied a visa by United States immigration authorities when he applied to visit New York City to attend the premiere, despite having already been granted asylum in the United Kingdom since the 1990s. The reason reported to have been given was that he had once been a conscripted member of the Iraqi Army — although this was also the grounds for his refugee status after his desertion in 1993.[12] Other sources say that he applied late for his visa and that it was not denied.[13]
Historical background[edit]
Main article: United Airlines Flight 93
The real United Airlines Flight 93 was a Boeing 757-222 flight that regularly flew from Newark International Airport (now known as Newark Liberty International Airport) in Newark, New Jersey, to San Francisco International Airport in San Francisco, California. On September 11, 2001, the aircraft on the flight was one of the four planes hijacked as part of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, possibly intended to crash into and destroy the United States Capitol building in Washington, D.C. It was the only plane out of all four hijacked that did not reach its intended target, instead crashing in Stonycreek Township, Pennsylvania, near Shanksville, about 150 miles (ca 240 km) northwest of Washington.
The cockpit voice recorder tape from United Flight 93 has never been made public; however the transcript was made public after the film was completed, shedding more light on what actually happened in the final 30 minutes before the plane crashed. In some parts, it may contradict the choices made by the filmmaker in terms of some dialogue and specific aspects of the event. For example, the pilots, Jason Dahl and LeRoy Homer, are shown in the film to be killed by the terrorists immediately as they are hijacking the plane. Some statements made by the terrorists in the transcript of the cockpit voice recorder tape,[14] as well as moans heard in the background inside the cockpit,[15] raised doubts that both pilots were indeed dead before the plane crashed; however, other documentary evidence from the 9/11 Commission Report indicated that at least one passenger reported in a cell phone call seeing two bodies, possibly the pilots, lying dead on the floor outside the cockpit after the hijacking.[16]
The film has been criticized for its portrayal of German passenger Christian Adams, who is the only passenger portrayed as counseling appeasement, despite a lack of evidence that he did so. It was also reported that Adams's widow did not cooperate with the filmmakers because it was too painful.[17] Erich Redman, who portrayed Adams in the film, said he did not intend to portray Adams as cowardly but as a man who "never made rash decisions and everything he did was always well-considered."[17]
Reception[edit]
Critical response[edit]
United 93 was one of the most critically acclaimed films of 2006. Roger Ebert, Michael Medved, Peter Travers, and James Berardinelli all awarded it four stars. It was termed "one of the most moving films of the year" by Peter Travers in Rolling Stone. It holds an average 91% "Fresh" rating from the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes,[18] as well as a 90% rating on Metacritic, where the film appears on 39 US top ten lists, more than any other 2006 film on the site,[19] (although the 2006 film with the highest average score on the site is the 1969 Army of Shadows).[20][21] The film was ranked #1 on 47 lists (the most of any 2006 film).[22]
At the website Movie City News, which ranks 250 critics lists and awards point values for list-placement, United 93 ranks as the #1 movie of 2006[23][24][25] with a score of 917.5 points.
The film has been cited as a favorite by filmmaker John Waters, who presented it as his annual selection within the 2010 Maryland Film Festival.
US top ten lists[edit]
Only two films (The Departed and The Queen) appeared on more top ten lists of the best films of 2006 than United 93, and no film received more #1 mentions:[19]
1st — Empire
1st — J.R. Jones, Chicago Reader
1st — Kyle Smith, New York Post
1st — Lawrence Toppman, The Charlotte Observer
1st — Michael Rechtshaffen, The Hollywood Reporter
1st — Michael Sragow, The Baltimore Sun
1st — Mike Russell, The Oregonian
1st — Noel Murray, The A.V. Club
2nd — Claudia Puig, USA Today
2nd — James Berardinelli, ReelViews
2nd — Marc Mohan, The Oregonian
2nd — Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune
2nd — Nathan Rabin, The A.V. Club
2nd — Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly
2nd — Shawn Levy, The Oregonian
2nd — Sheri Linden, The Hollywood Reporter
2nd — Joshua Rothkopf, Time Out New York
2nd — Staff, Film Threat
3rd — Ann Hornaday, The Washington Post
 3rd — Desson Thomson, The Washington Post
3rd — Marjorie Baumgarten, The Austin Chronicle
3rd — Scott Foundas, LA Weekly
3rd — Scott Tobias, The A.V. Club
3rd — Ty Burr, The Boston Globe
4th — Kirk Honeycutt, The Hollywood Reporter
4th — Rene Rodriguez, The Miami Herald
4th — Richard Corliss, TIME magazine
4th — Tasha Robinson, The A.V. Club
5th — Frank Scheck, The Hollywood Reporter
5th — Keith Phipps, The A.V. Club
6th — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times
6th — Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
6th — Stephen Holden, The New York Times
8th — Dennis Harvey, Variety
8th — Kevin Smith
8th — Lou Lumenick, New York Post
8th — Marc Savlov, The Austin Chronicle
8th — Ray Bennett, The Hollywood Reporter
9th — William Arnold, Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal and Steven Rea of The Philadelphia Inquirer named it among the top ten best films of 2006.[19]
Accolades[edit]
United 93 received numerous awards and nominations from film critics and guilds. Ultimately, the film received two Academy Award nominations, including Best Director, at the 79th Academy Awards and 6 BAFTA nominations, including Best British Film, at the 60th British Academy Film Awards winning two for Best Director and Best Film Editing.

[show]List of awards and nominations[26][27]










   
  
   
   
   
  
   
  
  
   
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
   
   
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
   
   
   
  
   
   
  
  
   
 

 
   
   
   
   
  
  
  
   
   
   
  
  
  
   
   
  
   
  
   
  
  
   
   

Home media[edit]
United 93 was released to DVD on September 5, 2006, in both widescreen and fullscreen. Also released was a 2-disc Special Limited Edition in widescreen. A Blu-ray Disc version was released on September 6, 2011.[28]
See also[edit]
List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks
The 9/11 Commission Report
The Flight that Fought Back
Flight 93, television film
World Trade Center, film
I Missed Flight 93
United 300
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "UNITED 93 (15)". United International Pictures. British Board of Film Classification. May 11, 2006. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
2.^ Jump up to: a b c "Box Office mojo — United 93". Boxofficemojo.com. 2006-07-06. Retrieved 2013-06-10.
3.Jump up ^ Allen Barra "Historical Film: It's Time to See a Movie We Couldn't Bear to Go To" American Heritage, Nov./Dec. 2006.
4.Jump up ^ Heath, Iver (January 1, 2006). "Four Years On, a Cabin's-Eye View of 9/11". New York Times.
5.Jump up ^ September 11 plane drama to open NY film festival. March 29, 2006, Reuters article.
6.^ Jump up to: a b A Dark Day Revisited. April 10, Newsweek.
7.Jump up ^ Boorstin, Julia (2006-01-08). "msnbc". MSNBC. Retrieved 2013-06-10.
8.Jump up ^ The Day They Hijacked America April 28, 2006 The Guardian
9.Jump up ^ "MPAA Film Ratings". Mpaa.org. Retrieved 2013-06-10.
10.Jump up ^ "A Flight to Remember", April 18, 2006 The Village Voice
11.Jump up ^ [1] April 4, 2006, New York Times
12.Jump up ^ 9/11 film actor refused visa for US premiere April 21, 2006 The Times
13.Jump up ^ America bars Iraqi immigrant who played hijacker in September 11 film April 22, 2006 The Independent On Sunday
14.Jump up ^ United Flight 93 Cockpit Voice Recorder Transcript. "Some point to the comment made at 9:45:25 to indicate doubt that both pilots were dead." Accessed December 10, 2006
15.Jump up ^ United Flight 93 Cockpit Voice Recorder Transcript. "There are several unattributed groans recorded at 9:58, before the passenger assault on the cockpit apparently began." Accessed December 10, 2006
16.Jump up ^ The 9/11 Commission Report, Page 13, paragraph 2. Accessed December 10, 2006
17.^ Jump up to: a b United 93 actor defends portrayal
18.Jump up ^ "United 93 (2006)". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved September 9, 2013.
19.^ Jump up to: a b c "Metacritic: 2006 Film Critic Top Ten Lists". Metacritic. Archived from the original on 2007-12-13. Retrieved 2008-01-08.
20.Jump up ^ "Best Reviewed Film of 2006 — Metacritic". Metacritic.com. Retrieved 2013-06-10.
21.Jump up ^ http://www.avmaroc.com/videos/united+airlines-cLiPUfHP1_DIie0.html
22.Jump up ^ "Best of 2006: CriticsTop10". Criticstop10.com. 2010-12-29. Retrieved 2013-06-10.
23.Jump up ^ "The 2006 Top Tens". Movie City News. Archived from the original on 23 January 2007. Retrieved 3 September 2013.
24.Jump up ^ "2006 Overall Critics Choice Results Discussion — The Hot Button". Thehotbutton.com. Retrieved 2013-06-10.
25.Jump up ^ "The 2006 Top Tens". Movie City News. 6 January 2007. Archived from the original on 27 January 2007. Retrieved 3 September 2013.
26.Jump up ^ United 93 Awards and Nominations at IMDB
27.Jump up ^ "The Awards Scoreboard". Movie City News. Archived from the original on 22 January 2007. Retrieved 3 September 2013.
28.Jump up ^ "'United 93' Blu-ray Announced and Detailed | High-Def Digest". Bluray.highdefdigest.com. 2011-05-31. Retrieved 2013-06-10.
External links[edit]
Official website
United 93 at the Internet Movie Database
United 93 at Box Office Mojo
United 93 at Rotten Tomatoes
United 93 at Metacritic
German 9/11 Victim Defamed in 'United 93 (Review focusing on the stereotyping and politics)
Hijacking the Hijacking, the problem with the United 93 films By Ron Rosenbaum, on Slate.com
Investigating 'United 93': Researching and Honoring a Catastrophe: Part I by Uri Lessing
Investigating 'United 93': Researching and Honoring a Catastrophe: Part II by Uri Lessing


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Films directed by Paul Greengrass

















[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
United Airlines Flight 93







United93CrashSite May06.jpg





























































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Empire Award for Best British Film






















 


Categories: 2006 films
English-language films
2000s drama films
American films
American aviation films
American disaster films
American drama films
British films
British aviation films
British drama films
French films
French drama films
Films directed by Paul Greengrass
Best British Film Empire Award winners
Docudramas
Films based on actual events
Films based on the September 11 attacks
Films set on airplanes
Films shot in Morocco
Films shot in New Jersey
United Airlines Flight 93
Pinewood Studios films
StudioCanal films
Working Title Films films
Universal Pictures films






Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk










Read

Edit

View history
















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikimedia Shop

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools










Print/export





Languages
العربية
Català
Čeština
Cymraeg
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
Magyar
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Русский
Suomi
Svenska
ไทย
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 18 February 2014 at 16:15.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
 Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   








Amending our Terms of Use:
 Please comment on a proposed amendment regarding undisclosed paid editing.
 [ Help with translations! ] 
close
Fahrenheit 9/11
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Fahrenheit 9/11
Fahrenheit 911 poster.jpg
Promotional poster for Miramax Films

Directed by
Michael Moore
Produced by
Michael Moore
Jim Czarnecki
Kathleen Glynn
Monica Hampton
Harvey Weinstein
Bob Weinstein

Written by
Michael Moore
Starring
Michael Moore
Distributed by
Lions Gate Films
IFC Films
Dog Eat Dog Films
Miramax Films (uncredited)

Release dates
May 17, 2004 (Cannes)
June 25, 2004 (United States)

Running time
122 minutes
Country
United States
Language
English
Budget
$6 million
Box office
$222,446,882[1]
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 2004 documentary film by American filmmaker and director and political commentator Michael Moore. The film takes a critical look at the presidency of George W. Bush, the War on Terror, and its coverage in the news media. The film is the highest grossing documentary of all time.
In the film, Moore contends that American corporate media were "cheerleaders" for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and did not provide an accurate or objective analysis of the rationale for the war or the resulting casualties there. The film generated intense controversy, including disputes over its accuracy.
The film debuted at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival in the documentary film category and received a 20 minute standing ovation, among the longest standing ovations in the festival's history. The film was also awarded the Palme d'Or,[2] the festival's highest award.
The title of the film alludes to Ray Bradbury's 1953 novel Fahrenheit 451, a dystopian view of the future United States, drawing an analogy between the autoignition temperature of paper and the date of the September 11 attacks; the film's tagline is "The Temperature at Which Freedom Burns."


Contents  [hide]
1 Financing, pre-release, and distribution
2 Synopsis
3 Film release and box office
4 DVD release
5 Initial television presentations
6 Reception 6.1 Critical reception
6.2 Commercial reception
7 Awards 7.1 Palme d'Or
7.2 People's Choice Award
8 Controversy
9 Moore's expectations for the 2004 presidential election
10 Lawsuit
11 Further reading
12 References
13 External links

Financing, pre-release, and distribution[edit]
Originally planned to be financed by Mel Gibson's Icon Productions (which planned to give Michael Moore eight figures in upfront cash and potential backend),[3] Fahrenheit 9/11 was later picked up by Miramax Films and Wild Bunch in May 2003 after Icon Productions had abruptly dropped the financing deal it made.[4] Miramax had earlier distributed another film for Moore, The Big One, in 1997.
At that time, Disney was the parent company of Miramax. According to the book DisneyWar, Disney executives did not know that Miramax agreed to finance the film until they saw a posting on the Drudge Report. Afterward, Michael Eisner (who was the CEO of Disney at that time) called Harvey Weinstein (who was the co-chairman of Miramax at that time) and ordered him to drop the film. In addition, Disney sent two letters to Weinstein demanding Miramax drop the film. Weinstein felt Disney had no right to block them from releasing Fahrenheit 9/11 since the film's $6 million budget was well below the level that Miramax needed to seek Disney's approval, and it would not be rated NC-17.[5] But Weinstein was in contract negotiations with Disney, so he offered compromises and said that he would drop the film if Disney did not like it.[5] Disney responded by having Peter Murphy send Weinstein a letter stating that the film's $6 million budget was only a bridge financing and Miramax would sell off their interest in the movie to get those $6 million back; according to the same letter, Miramax was also expected to publicly state that they would not release the film.[5]
After Fahrenheit 9/11 was nearly finished, Miramax held several preview screenings for the film; in the screenings, the film was "testing through the roof."[6] Afterward, Harvey Weinstein said to Michael Eisner that Fahrenheit 9/11 was finished, and Eisner was surprised by the fact that Miramax had continued making the film.[6] Weinstein asked several Disney executives (including Eisner) to watch the film, but all of them declined; Disney stated again that Miramax would not release the film, and Disney also accused Weinstein of hiding Fahrenheit 9/11 by keeping it off production reports.[6] Finally, Disney sent their production vice president Brad Epstein to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 on April 24, 2004.[6] According to Weinstein, Epstein said to Weinstein that he liked the film; but according to the report Epstein sent to Disney board, Epstein clearly criticized it.[6] Afterward, Eisner told Weinstein that Disney board decided not to allow Miramax to release the film.[6] Weinstein was furious and he asked George J. Mitchell (who was the chairman of Disney at that time) to see the film, but Mitchell declined.[6] Later, Weinstein asked lawyer David Boies to help him find a solution;[6] the Weinsteins and Moore had also hired Chris Lehane to consult on the film's release strategies.[7]
The New York Times reported about Disney's decision on May 5, 2004.[8] Disney stated that both Moore's agent (Ari Emanuel) and Miramax were advised in May 2003 that Miramax would not be permitted to distribute the film. Disney representatives said Disney has the right to veto any Miramax film if it appears that their distribution would be counterproductive to the interests of the company; indeed, Disney had blocked Miramax from releasing two films before: Kids and Dogma.[9]
Because of these difficulties, distribution for the film was first secured in numerous countries outside the U.S.
 On May 28, 2004, after more than a week of talks, Disney announced that Miramax film studio founders Harvey and Bob Weinstein had personally acquired the rights to the documentary from Walt Disney Co. after Disney declined to distribute it. The Weinsteins agreed to repay Disney for all costs of the film to that point, estimated at around $6 million. They also agreed to be responsible for all costs to finish the film and all marketing costs not paid by any third-party film distributors.[10] A settlement between the Weinsteins and Disney was also reached so that 60% of the film's profit would be donated to charity.[11]
Later, The Weinsteins established Fellowship Adventure Group to handle the distribution of this film. Fellowship Adventure Group joined forces with Lions Gate Entertainment (which had released two other Miramax-financed films O and Dogma)[12] and IFC Films to release it in the United States theatrically. (Later, Fellowship Adventure Group also handled the film's United States home video distribution through Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment). Moore stated that he was "grateful to them now that everyone who wants to see it will now have the chance to do so.[13]
After being informed that the film had been rated R rating by the Motion Picture Association of America, Moore appealed the decision, hoping to obtain a PG-13 rating instead. Moore's lawyer, former Governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, was not allowed to attend the hearing. The appeal was denied on June 22, 2004, and Cuomo contended that it was because he had been banned from the hearing. Some theaters chose to defy the MPAA and allow unchaperoned teenagers to attend screenings.
Synopsis[edit]
The movie begins by suggesting that friends and political allies of George W. Bush at Fox News Channel tilted the election of 2000 by prematurely declaring Bush the winner. It then suggests the handling of the voting controversy in Florida constituted election fraud.
The film then segues into the September 11 attacks. Moore says Bush was informed of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center on his way to an elementary school. Bush is then shown sitting in a Florida classroom with children. When told that a second plane has hit the World Trade Center and that the nation is "under attack", Bush allows the students to finish their book reading, and Moore notes that he continued reading for nearly seven minutes.
Moore then discusses the complex relationships between the U.S. government and the Bush family; and between the bin Laden family, the Saudi Arabian government, and the Taliban, which span over three decades. Moore alleges that the United States government evacuated 24 members of the bin Laden family on a secret flight shortly after the attacks, without subjecting them to any form of interrogation.
Moore moves on to examine George W. Bush's Air National Guard service record. Moore contends that Bush's dry-hole oil well attempts were partially funded by the Saudis and by the bin Laden family through the intermediary of James R. Bath. Moore alleges that these conflicts of interest suggest that the Bush administration is not working for the best interests of Americans. The movie continues by suggesting ulterior motives for the War in Afghanistan, including a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean.
Moore alleges that the Bush administration induced a climate of fear among the American population through the mass media. Moore then describes purported anti-terror efforts, including government infiltration of pacifist groups and other events, and the signing of the USA PATRIOT Act.
The documentary then turns to the subject of the Iraq War, comparing the lives of the Iraqis before and after the invasion. The citizens of Iraq are portrayed as living relatively happy lives prior to the country's invasion by the U.S. military. The film also takes pains to demonstrate supposed war cheerleading in the U.S. media and general bias of journalists, with quotes from news organizations and embedded journalists. Moore suggests that atrocities will occur in Iraq and shows footage depicting U.S. abuse of prisoners.
Later in the film, Lila Lipscomb appears with her family after hearing of the death of her son, Sgt. Michael Pedersen, who was killed on April 2, 2003, in Karbala. Anguished and tearful, she begins to question the purpose of the war.
Tying together several themes and points, Moore compliments those serving in the U.S. military. He claims that the lower class of America are always the first to join the Army, so that the people better off do not have to join. He states that those valuable troops should not be sent to risk their lives unless it is necessary to defend America. The credits roll while Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World" plays.
Moore dedicated the film to his friend who was killed in the World Trade Center attacks and to those servicemen and women from Flint, Michigan that have been killed in Iraq. The film is also dedicated to "countless thousands" of civilian victims of war as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Film release and box office[edit]



 Alternate Fahrenheit 9/11 poster
The film was released theatrically by The Fellowship Adventure Group through a distribution arrangement with Lions Gate Entertainment. On its opening weekend of June 25–27, 2004, the film generated box-office revenues of $23.9 million in the U.S. and Canada, making it the weekend's top-grossing film. Its opening weekend earned more than the entire U.S. theatrical run of any other feature-length documentary (including Moore's previous film, Bowling for Columbine). The film was released in the UK on July 2, 2004 and in France on July 7, 2004.[14]
Moore credited part of the theatrical success to the efforts of conservative groups to pressure theaters not to run the film, conjecturing that these efforts backfired by creating publicity. There were also efforts by liberal groups such as MoveOn.org (who helped promote the film) to encourage attendance in order to defy their political opponents' contrary efforts.[15]
Fahrenheit 9/11 was screened in a number of Middle Eastern countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and Egypt, but was immediately banned in Kuwait. "We have a law that prohibits insulting friendly nations," said Abdul-Aziz Bou Dastour of the Kuwaiti Information Ministry.[16][17] The film was not shown in Saudi Arabia as public movie theaters are not permitted. The Saudi ruling elite subsequently launched an advertising campaign spanning nineteen US cites to counter criticism partly raised in the film.[18]
The film was shown in Iran, an anomaly in a nation in which American films had been banned since the Iran hostage crisis in 1979. Iranian film producer and human rights activist Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi communicated with Iranians who saw the film, and claimed that it generated a pro-American response.[19]
In Cuba, bootlegged versions of the film were shown in 120 theaters, followed by a prime-time television broadcast by the leading state-run network. It had been widely reported that this might affect its Oscar eligibility. However, soon after that story had been published, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences issued a statement denying this, saying, "If it was pirated or stolen or unauthorized we would not blame the producer or distributor for that."[20] In addition, Wild Bunch, the film's overseas distributor for Cuba, issued a statement denying a television deal had been struck with Cuban Television. The issue became moot, however, when Moore decided to forgo Oscar eligibility in favor of a pay-per-view televising of the film on November 1, 2004.
DVD release[edit]
Fahrenheit 9/11 was released to DVD and VHS on October 5, 2004, an unusually short turnaround time after theatrical release. In the first days of the release, the film broke records for the highest-selling documentary ever. About two million copies were sold on the first day, most of which (1.4 million) were sold as rentals.[21]
A companion book, The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader, was released at the same time. It contains the complete screenplay, documentation of Moore's sources, audience e-mails about the film, film reviews, articles
Initial television presentations[edit]

Question book-new.svg
 This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2012)
The two-hour film was planned to be shown as part of the three-hour "The Michael Moore Pre-Election Special" on iN DEMAND, but iN DEMAND backed out in mid-October. Moore later arranged for simultaneous broadcasts on November 1, 2004 at 8:00 p.m. (EST) on Dish Network, TVN, and the Cinema Now website and material prepared for "The Michael Moore Pre-Election Special" was incorporated into "Fahrenheit 9/11: A Movement in Time", which aired that same week on The Independent Film Channel.
The movie was also shown on basic cable television in Germany and Austria on November 1, 2004 and November 2, 2004. In the UK, the film was shown on Channel 4 on January 27, 2005. In Hungary, it was shown on RTL Klub, a commercial channel, on September 10, 2005, on m1, one of the national channels, on August 13, 2006, on m2, the other national channel, on September 1, 2006. In Denmark, it was shown on Danmarks Radio (normally referred to as just DR), which is Denmark's national broadcasting corporation, on April 11, 2006. In Norway, it was shown on NRK, the national broadcasting corporation, on August 27, 2006. The film was screened in New Zealand on September 9, 2006 on TV ONE, a channel of TVNZ. The next day, the Dutch network Nederland 3 aired the film. In Belgium, it was shown on Kanaal 2 on October 12, 2006. In Brazil, it aired on October 10, 2008 on TV Cultura, the São Paulo public broadcasting network.
Reception[edit]
Critical reception[edit]
The film was received positively by critics. It received an 83% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 221 reviews.[22] It also received a score of 67 (generally favorable) on Metacritic, based on 43 reviews.[23] The consensus according to Rotten Tomatoes being "Extremely one-sided in its indictment of the Bush administration, but worth watching for the humor and the debates it'll stir."[22]
Film critic Roger Ebert, who gave the documentary three and a half stars out of four, says that the film "is less an expose of George W. Bush than a dramatization of what Moore sees as a failed and dangerous presidency." In the film, Moore presents footage of Vice President Al Gore presiding over the event that would officially anoint Bush as president, the day that a joint session of the House of Representatives and the Senate would certify the election results. "Moore brings a fresh impact to familiar material by the way he marshals his images", says Ebert.
Entertainment Weekly put it on its end-of-the-decade, "best-of" list, saying, "Michael Moore's anti-Bush polemic gave millions of frustrated liberals exactly what they needed to hear in 2004--and infuriated just about everyone else. Along the way, it became the highest-grossing documentary of all time."[24]
Commercial reception[edit]
Grossing over $222 million total worldwide, the film was the highest grossing documentary of all time, according to Box Office Mojo.[1] The film had a general release in the United States and Canada on June 23, 2004. It has since been released in 42 more countries. On Al-Jazeera in August 2012, Moore claimed the movie "grossed about half a billion dollars" worldwide.[25]
Awards[edit]
Palme d'Or[edit]



Michael Moore receiving the Palme d'Or at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival.
In April 2004, the film was selected to compete for the Palme d'Or at the 57th Cannes Film Festival. After its first showing in Cannes in May 2004, the film received a 15–20 minute standing ovation; Harvey Weinstein, whose Miramax Films funded the film, said, "It was the longest standing ovation I've seen in over 25 years."[26][27]
On May 22, 2004, the film was awarded the Palme d'Or.[2] It was the first documentary to win that award since Jacques Cousteau's and Louis Malle's The Silent World in 1956. Just as his much publicized Oscar acceptance speech, Moore's speech in Cannes included some political statements:[28]

I have a sneaking suspicion that what you have done here and the response from everyone at the festival, you will assure that the American people will see this film. I can't thank you enough for that. You've put a huge light on this and many people want the truth and many want to put it in the closet, just walk away. There was a great Republican president who once said, if you just give the people the truth, the Republicans, the Americans will be saved. […] I dedicate this Palme d'Or to my daughter, to the children of Americans and to Iraq and to all those in the world who suffer from our actions.
Some conservatives in the United States, such as Jon Alvarez of FireHollywood, commented that such an award could be expected from the French.[29] Moore had remarked only days earlier that: "I fully expect the Fox News Channel and other right-wing media to portray this as an award from the French. […] There was only one French citizen on the jury. Four out of nine were American. […] This is not a French award, it was given by an international jury dominated by Americans."[30] The jury was made up of four North Americans (one of them born in Haiti), four Europeans, and one Asian.[31]
He also responded to suggestions that the award was political: "Quentin [Tarantino] whispered in my ear, 'We want you to know that it was not the politics of your film that won you this award. We are not here to give a political award. Some of us have no politics. We awarded the art of cinema, that is what won you this award and we wanted you to know that as a fellow filmmaker.'"[32] In comments to the prize-winning jury in 2005, Cannes director Gilles Jacob said that panels should make their decision based on filmmaking rather than politics. He expressed his opinion that though Moore's talent was not in doubt, "it was a question of a satirical tract that was awarded a prize more for political than cinematographic reasons, no matter what the jury said."[33] Interviewed about the decision four years later, Tarantino responded: "As time has gone on, I have put that decision under a microscope and I still think we were right. That was a movie of the moment – Fahrenheit 9/11 may not play the same way now as it did then, but back then it deserved everything it got."[34]
People's Choice Award[edit]
The film won additional awards after its release, such as the People's Choice Award for Favorite Motion Picture, an unprecedented honor for a documentary.[citation needed]
Controversy[edit]
Main article: Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy
The film generated significant criticism and controversy after its release shortly before the United States presidential election, 2004. British-American journalist and literary critic Christopher Hitchens contended that Fahrenheit 9/11 contains distortions and untruths.[35] This drew several rebuttals, including an eFilmCritic article and a Columbus Free Press editorial.[36] Former Democratic mayor of New York City Ed Koch, who had endorsed President Bush for re-election, called the film propaganda.[37] In response, Moore published a list of facts and sources for Fahrenheit 9/11 and a document that he says establishes agreements between the points made in his film and the findings of the 9/11 Commission.[38]
Moore's expectations for the 2004 presidential election[edit]
The film was released in June 2004, less than five months before the 2004 presidential election. Michael Moore, while not endorsing presidential candidate John Kerry, stated in interviews that he hoped "to see Mr. Bush removed from the White House".[39] He also said that he hoped his film would influence the election: "This may be the first time a film has this kind of impact".[39] However, some political analysts did not expect it to have a significant effect on the election. One Republican strategist stated that Moore "communicates to that far-left sliver that would never vote for Bush", and Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College, suspected that the main effect of the film would be to "turn Bush-haters into bigger Bush-haters."[39] Regardless of whether the film would change the minds of many voters, Moore stated his intention to use it as an organizing tool, and hoped that it would energize those who wanted to see Bush defeated in 2004, increasing voter turnout.[40] Notwithstanding the film's influence and commercial success, George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004.
Lawsuit[edit]
In February 2011, Moore sued producers Bob and Harvey Weinstein for US$2.7 million in unpaid profits from the film, stating that they used "Hollywood accounting tricks" to avoid paying him the money.[41] They responded Moore had received US$20 million for the film and that "his claims are hogwash".[41]
Eventually, Moore reached a settlement with Bob and Harvey Weinstein, and the lawsuit was dropped.[42]
Further reading[edit]
Stewart, James B. (2005). DisneyWar. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-80993-1.
References[edit]
1.^ Jump up to: a b "Fahrenheit 9/11". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
2.^ Jump up to: a b "Fahrenheit 9/11 (Fahrenheit 911)". festival-cannes.com. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
3.Jump up ^ Fleming, Michael (27 March 2003). "Moore tools up for another furor". Variety. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
4.Jump up ^ Fleming, Michael (8 May 2003). "Moore's hot-potato '911' docu loses an Icon". Variety. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
5.^ Jump up to: a b c Stewart, p.429-430
6.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h Stewart, p.519-520
7.Jump up ^ Moore's War; After skewering a sitting president, a Detroit mogul, and a cultural icon, Michael Moore is taking on the health-care industry
8.Jump up ^ Rutenberg, Jim (5 May 2004). "Disney Is Blocking Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
9.Jump up ^ Stuart Miller (16 October 2005). "The ripple effect". Variety. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
10.Jump up ^ "Weinstein Brothers buy Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11". ctv.ca. 29 May 2004. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
11.Jump up ^ "Commondreams.org". Commondreams.org. 2004-07-02. Retrieved 2012-06-15.
12.Jump up ^ Johnnie L. Roberts (2004-07-11). "Newsweek.com". Newsweek.com. Retrieved 2012-06-15.
13.Jump up ^ Bruce Orwall (2 July 2004). "Big Part of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Profit Goes to Charity". commondreams.org. Retrieved 2 October 2011.
14.Jump up ^ "Fahrenheit 9/11 - International Box Office Results". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 18 September 2011.
15.Jump up ^ Paul Magnusson (12 July 2004). "Will Fahrenheit 9/11 Singe Bush". BW Online. Retrieved 18 September 2011.
16.Jump up ^ "Kuwait bans anti-Bush documentary". BBC News. 2 August 2004. Retrieved 3 October 2011.
17.Jump up ^ Donna Abu-Nasr (22 August 2004). "Arabs denounce, embrace Fahrenheit". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
18.Jump up ^ Brian Whitaker (19 August 2004). "Saudis buy ads to counter Fahrenheit 9/11". The Age.
19.Jump up ^ Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi (29 September 2004). "Iranian Citizens Trash Fahrenheit 9/11". frontpagemag.com. Retrieved 3 October 2011.
20.Jump up ^ Josh Grossberg (August 3, 2004). "Moore's Cuban Oscar Crisis?". E Online. Retrieved 3 October 2011.
21.Jump up ^ Brett Sporich (6 October 2004). "'Fahrenheit' Burns Home-Video Sales Records". Reuters. Archived from the original on 11 October 2004. Retrieved 3 October 11.
22.^ Jump up to: a b "Fahrenheit 9/11". Rotten Tomatoes. Retrieved 3 October 2011.
23.Jump up ^ "Fahrenheit 9/11". Metacritic. Retrieved 3 October 2011.
24.Jump up ^ Geier, Thom; Jensen, Jeff; Jordan, Tina; Lyons, Margaret; Markovitz, Adam; Nashawaty, Chris; Pastorek, Whitney; Rice, Lynette; Rottenberg, Josh; Schwartz, Missy; Slezak, Michael; Snierson, Dan; Stack, Tim; Stroup, Kate; Tucker, Ken; Vary, Adam B.; Vozick-Levinson, Simon; Ward, Kate (11 December 2009). "THE 100 Greatest MOVIES, TV SHOWS, ALBUMS, BOOKS, CHARACTERS, SCENES, EPISODES, SONGS, DRESSES, MUSIC VIDEOS, AND TRENDS THAT ENTERTAINED US OVER THE PAST 10 YEARS". Entertainment Weekly: 74–84.
25.Jump up ^ Hollywood and the war machine (Television production). Empire. Al Jazeera. 2012-08-06. Event occurs at 20:05. Retrieved 2012-09-03. "And, contrary to what everybody said would happen, the film to date has grossed about half a billion dollars worldwide."
26.Jump up ^ 'Fahrenheit' lights fire in Cannes debut, The Hollywood Reporter. May 18, 2004.[dead link]
27.Jump up ^ Anti-Bush film tops Cannes awards, BBC News Online. May 24, 2004.
28.Jump up ^ "Palme d'Or to "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Michael Moore". festival-cannes.com. May 23, 2004. Retrieved 3 October 2011.
29.Jump up ^ Jon Alvarez (28 May 2004). "The French, Michael Moore, and Fahrenheit 9/11". chronwatch.com. Archived from the original on 15 August 2004. Retrieved 3 October 2011.
30.Jump up ^ A. O. Scott (23 May 2004). "'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins Top Prize at Cannes". The New York Times.
31.Jump up ^ "Festival de Cannes - From 15 to 26 may 2013". Festival-cannes.com. Retrieved 2012-06-15.
32.Jump up ^ "Moore film 'won Cannes on merit'". BBC News. 23 May 2004. Retrieved 3 October 2011.
33.Jump up ^ Caroline Briggs (11 May 2005). "'No politics' at Cannes festival". BBC News. Retrieved 3 October 2011.
34.Jump up ^ Hirschberg, Lynn. The Call Back: Quentin Tarantino, T magazine, Summer 2009.[dead link]
35.Jump up ^ Hitchens, Christopher (21 June 2004). "Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore". Slate.com. Retrieved 5 October 2011.
36.Jump up ^ "A defense of Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9/11"". blueyonder.co.uk. Retrieved 5 October 2011.
37.Jump up ^ Koch, Ed (29 June 2004). "Koch: Moore's propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation". WorldTribune.com. Retrieved 5 October 2011.
38.Jump up ^ "Film footnotes: Fahrenheit 9/11". MichaelMoore.com. Retrieved 5 October 2011.
39.^ Jump up to: a b c Kasindorf, Martin; Keen, Judy (25 June 2004). "'Fahrenheit 9/11': Will it change any voter's mind?". USA Today. Retrieved 5 October 2011.
40.Jump up ^ McNamee, Mike (12 July 2004). "Washington Outlook: Will Fahrenheit 9/11 Singe Bush?". BusinessWeek. Retrieved 5 October 2011.
41.^ Jump up to: a b "Film-maker Michael Moore sues Weinstein brothers". bbc.co.uk. 9 February 2011. Retrieved 5 October 2011.
42.Jump up ^ Michael Moore, Harvey Weinstein Settle 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Lawsuit
External links[edit]
Official website Notes and sources
Fahrenheit 9/11 at the Internet Movie Database
Fahrenheit 9/11 at allmovie
Fahrenheit 9/11 at Box Office Mojo
Fahrenheit 9/11 at Rotten Tomatoes


[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Palme d'Or winning films










































































































[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
George W. Bush













George-W-Bush.jpeg


















































































Wikipedia book
Category




[show]
v ·
 t ·
 e
 
Michael Moore




































 


Categories: 2004 films
English-language films
2000s documentary films
American independent films
American documentary films
Documentary films about American politics
Documentary films about the September 11 attacks
Documentary films about the Iraq War
Films about Presidents of the United States
Films about the United States presidential election, 2000
United States presidential election, 2004 in popular culture
Films shot in Iraq
Films directed by Michael Moore
Palme d'Or winners
Lions Gate Entertainment films
Lessin and Deal productions











Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk










Read

Edit

View history
















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikimedia Shop

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools










Print/export





Languages
العربية
Asturianu
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Italiano
עברית
Magyar
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk bokmål
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Slovenčina
Српски / srpski
Suomi
Svenska
Türkçe
Українська
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 4 February 2014 at 13:44.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
 Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   


















Amending our Terms of Use:
 Please comment on a proposed amendment regarding undisclosed paid editing.
 [ Help with translations! ] 
close
Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search




Fahrenheit 9/11 poster
The documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11 generated, and even courted controversy since it was first announced, even before its release just prior to the U.S. presidential election, 2004. The film by Michael Moore criticizes the Bush administration's attempt to pursue Osama bin Laden in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, as well as the Iraq War. Several commentators have criticized the film for factual and contextual inaccuracies.[1][2][3]


Contents  [hide]
1 Ray Bradbury's title dispute
2 Move America Forward's letter-writing campaign
3 Citizens United's FEC challenge
4 Controversy over the film's content 4.1 Bush reading to school children
4.2 Alleged discrepancy on Osama's presumed innocence
4.3 Saudi flights 4.3.1 Approval of the flights
4.3.2 The FBI's denial that it had a role in approving the flights
4.3.3 Alleged lack of cooperation from the White House
4.3.4 Interviewing of bin Laden relatives
4.3.5 Declassified FBI documents
4.4 War in Iraq 4.4.1 Children of members of Congress serving in Iraq
4.5 Peter Damon lawsuit
5 Unauthorized copying
6 References
7 External links

Ray Bradbury's title dispute[edit]
The title of the film refers to Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451 and the September 11 attacks of 2001. The Fahrenheit 451 reference is emphasized by the film's tagline "The temperature where freedom burns" (compare with Fahrenheit 451's tagline, "The temperature at which books burn"). Moore has stated that the title came from the subject of an e-mail he received from a fan shortly after September 11.
Bradbury was upset by what he considered the appropriation of his title. He wanted the film renamed.[4][5]
Move America Forward's letter-writing campaign[edit]
The conservative political action group Move America Forward mounted a letter-writing campaign pressuring theater chains not to screen the film, which it compared to "an al-Qaeda training video."[6] "We've been causing them [the cinemas] an enormous amount of aggravation", said group member and talk radio host Melanie Morgan.[7]
Citizens United's FEC challenge[edit]
Citizens United, a conservative group run by David Bossie, filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission charging that ads for the film constitute political advertising and thus may not be aired 60 days before an election or 30 days before a party convention. On August 5, the FEC unanimously dismissed the complaint finding no evidence that the movie's ads had broken the law.[8] A further complaint filed in 2005 was also rejected.[9]
Controversy over the film's content[edit]
Shailagh Murray described Fahrenheit 9/11 in The Wall Street Journal as a "harshly satirical and controversial portrait of the Bush presidency."[10] Stephen Dalton of The Times wrote that the movie "hits enough of its satirical targets to qualify as an important and timely film."[11] Desson Thomson says "there is more to Fahrenheit 9/11 than partisan ridicule. ... What's remarkable here isn't Moore's political animosity or ticklish wit. It's the well-argued, heartfelt power of his persuasion."[12] Author and blogger Andrew Sullivan expressed the opposite view, writing that Moore's film is "deeply corrosive of the possibility of real debate and reason in our culture."[13] Canadian journalist Linda McQuaig wrote in response to Sullivan: "Hell, the media shut down real debate long ago. It is precisely because the debate has been so thoroughly corroded by the mainstream media ... that Moore's film is being so gratefully received by so many."[14] Denis Hamill considers Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a "corrective to the daily drumbeat of right-wing talk radio."[15]
English-American journalist and literary critic Christopher Hitchens and Democratic politician Ed Koch contend that Fahrenheit 9/11 contains distortions and untruths and is propaganda.[3][16][17] Hitchens also compared Michael Moore to Leni Riefenstahl in his critique for Slate magazine: "Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl."[3] He later labeled Moore "a completely promiscuous opportunist [and] extremely callous person."[18]
Author and political commentator Peter Holding called Hitchens' analogy "hysterical, unfair and offensive," adding that "some of the criticism directed towards Moore's film displays the very same characteristics for which Moore's film has been criticised". Fellow Slate columnist and Iraq war critic David Edelstein, though generally supportive of the film, wrote Fahrenheit 9/11 "is an act of counterpropaganda that has a boorish, bullying force", but called it a "legitimate abuse of power."[19] Prominent left-wing intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy agreed the war was "a bad idea", but was sympathetic to the neoconservative point of view and disagreed with what he perceived to be the film's "core" argument, that "we have no reason to be interfering" in the Middle East.[20] Joe Scarborough alleges that Moore has ducked criticism and dodged interviews from both himself and Hitchens.[18]
Moore has published both a list of facts and sources for Fahrenheit 9/11 and a document establishing agreements between the points made in his film and the findings of the 9/11 Commission (the independent, bipartisan panel directed by Congress and Bush to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks).[21]
Bush reading to school children[edit]



 US President George W. Bush being told about the second plane hitting the World Trade Center in a classroom at Emma E. Booker Elementary School.
Early on in the film, Moore explains that Bush continued reading "The Pet Goat" with a classroom of second graders at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida for an extended period of time after being told of the attacks.
The school's principal, Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell, explained, "I don't think anyone could have handled it better. What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"[22] Some of the schoolchildren, now grown, have expressed similar views; Mariah Williams, one of the students, stated in 2011 that, "I'm just glad he didn't get up and leave because then I would have been more scared and confused."[23]
A 9/11 Commission Staff Report entitled Improvising a Homeland Defense said: "The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening."[24]
According to senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon and his inside look at the Bush administration's response to 9/11, Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was holding up a legal pad upon which he had written a message telling Bush not to say anything yet.[25]
Alleged discrepancy on Osama's presumed innocence[edit]



 Christopher Hitchens
According to Christopher Hitchens, Moore had argued in a previous public debate that Osama bin Laden was to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and thus questions the treatment of bin Laden in the film. "Something – I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now – has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous 'distraction' from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion."[3] Hitchens was subsequently invited to appear on Joe Scarborough's MSNBC talk show, Scarborough Country, at which point a tape recording of his debate with Moore at the Telluride Film Festival in 2002 was replayed.[18]

Moore: It seems as if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured, and brought to justice.
Hitchens: What is the "if" doing in that last sentence of yours?
Moore: Well, all people are innocent until proven guilty in this country. ... Even the worst piece of scum.
Hitchens: I feel I have to press you on that. You regard it as an open question, the responsibility of Osama bin Laden?
Moore: Until anyone is convicted of any crime, no matter how horrific the crime, they are innocent until proven guilty. And as Americans...
Hitchens: No, that's all I asked you.
Moore: Never leave that position.
Hitchens: I'm sorry. So bin Laden's claims of responsibility strike you as the ravings of a clown's, say?
When the video ended, Hitchens proceeded to explain: "Why does someone who thought that Osama was innocent and Afghanistan was no problem suddenly switch in this way? Because unless he says that he was dead wrong all along and Osama Laden was innocent and wronged, he can't say that everything else is a distraction from the hunt for Osama." Host Joe Scarborough agreed with Hitchens and criticised Moore for inconsistency, accusing him of "hypocrisy" for assuming bin Laden is innocent one minute "and yet, in this movie, at the very beginning, he criticizes George Bush for not assuming the bin Laden family is somehow guilty, then letting them out of the country."
Flak magazine editor Stephen Himes, after watching Scarborough Country and reviewing a transcript of the Telluride debate, wrote that Hitchens had misconstrued Moore's remarks: "Hitchens actually performs some Clintonian semantic gymnastics here. Moore's if is not intending 'I think Osama is innocent and the Afghan war is unjustified;' he's trying to make an argument for American due process: 'If he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice'."[26] Film critic Christopher Parry also took issue with Hitchens' interpretation of Moore's remarks, writing "If you've got to build a case against Jeffery Dahmer, you've got to build a case against Bin Laden."

Allow me to explain Moore's motivation, as if it needed explaining to anyone with a concept of logic, law and due process. Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. That is the American Way. Indeed, it's the World Way. But in order to prove his guilt, one must build a case, capture him and put him to trial... But in Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore has a different point to make. What he's saying in Fahrenheit 9/11 is, why, exactly, when the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden is completely justified, have only 14,000 troops been sent after him, while ten times that number have been sent into Iraq to take over a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?[27]
CNN news anchor Daryn Kagan asked Moore why, if he is so willing to uphold the law, he could also be critical of the Bush administration for pursuing Osama bin Laden at the same time. Moore replied:

Because if you have a suspect and the suspect gets away, the police, or our military, have a right to go after and get that suspect. In fact, they should go get the suspect. And Richard Clarke's point, and my point is, is that they make a half-hearted effort ... because they didn't want to divert resources from what their main goal was, which was to go in and invade Iraq. And that's what they've been about since Day 1.[28]
Saudi flights[edit]
Moore implicates the White House in allowing relatives of Osama bin Laden to leave the United States without being interviewed at length by the FBI. In his narration in the movie, Moore states that "At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13." Moore based this statement on the research of Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, whom he interviewed for the film. Passenger lists can be found at the House of Bush website.[29]
Approval of the flights[edit]



 Richard Clarke
Christopher Hitchens points to a statement by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke when interviewed by The Hill newspaper in May 2004, in which "he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing [the] Saudi departures."[3] Hitchens says that Moore interviewed Clarke and "either he didn't ask Clarke, who authorized those flights, or Clarke told him it was me and only me, and he didn't think it was good enough to use. ... Either way, that's below the level of trash TV, trash journalism."[18] After quitting his White House position, Clarke became a prominent critic of the Bush administration's war on terrorism. Hitchens contends that the film does not mention Clarke's remarks so that it can criticize Bush for not going after Bin Laden's family, while holding up Clarke as a heroic, anti-war figure.[3]
The filmmaker defended himself in an interview with ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper, answering: "Actually I do [display the] article and it's blown up 40 foot on the screen, you can see Richard Clarke's name right there saying that he approved the flights based on the information the FBI gave him. It's right there, right up on the screen. I don't agree with Clarke on this point. Just because I think he's good on a lot of things doesn't mean I agree with him on everything."[30]
Moore, on his website and in The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader, points to additional statements by Richard Clarke, also published in The Hill, which he believes support his contention that the White House approved the flights.[31] The following is a chronological summary:
September 3, 2003: In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Clarke said: "It is true that members of the bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House."[32]
March 24, 2004: In testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Clarke indicated that the request was not abnormal, "The Saudi embassy, therefore, asked for these people to be evacuated; the same sort of thing that we do all the time in similar crises, evacuating Americans. The request came to me and I refused to approve it." He goes on to explain that the FBI eventually approved the flights and he describes conversations in which the FBI has said that there was no one who left on those flights who the FBI now wants to interview.
March 24, 2004: "I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. The two – since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know."
May 25, 2004: In an interview with The Hill newspaper, published the following day, Clarke said: "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again." He went on to say that "It didn't get any higher than me... On 9–11, 9–12 and 9–13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI."
The FBI's denial that it had a role in approving the flights[edit]
On May 18, 2004, Washington newspaper The Hill quoted FBI spokesman on counterterrorism John Iannarelli as denying that the FBI had any "role in facilitating these flights one way or another."[33] The FBI's denial of involvement was repeated to The Hill by another spokesperson, Donna Spiser, in a May 26, 2004 article. She is quoted as saying "We haven't had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights."[34] She states that the FBI's involvement was limited to interviewing those people on the flight it thought were of interest: "We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to."
Alleged lack of cooperation from the White House[edit]
The May 18 article in The Hill, which was published prior to Clarke's May 25 claim of responsibility, quoted 9/11 Commission vice-chair Lee H. Hamilton as saying: "We don't know who authorized [the flights]. We've asked that question 50 times." A May 26 article in The Hill quoted another Commission member, Tim Roemer, as being unconvinced by Clarke's claim of sole responsibility for approving the flights: "It doesn't seem that Richard Clarke had enough information to clear it... I just don't think that the questions are resolved, and we need to dig deeper... Clarke sure didn't seem to say that he was the final decisionmaker. I believe we need to continue to look for some more answers."[34]
Allegations concerning the Bush administration's refusal to provide information to the 9/11 Commission about the Saudi flights are disputed. The May 18, 2004 article in The Hill says that Commission vice-chairman Lee Hamilton "disclosed the administration's refusal to answer questions on the sensitive subject during a recent closed-door meeting with a group of Democratic senators, according to several Democratic sources." It also says that Republican Commission member John Lehman "said... that he told the senators the White House has been fully cooperative." President Bush, who met privately with the Saudi Arabian ambassador on the morning of Sept. 13, 2001, is suspected of personally authorizing the controversial flights while all other air travel had been halted.[33]
Interviewing of bin Laden relatives[edit]
Moore interviews author Craig Unger and retired FBI agent Jack Cloonan, both of whom say bin Laden family members were not questioned in a serious manner at length before being allowed to leave. The September 11 Commission has found that 22 of the 26 people on the "bin Laden" flight were interviewed before being allowed to leave the country with many being asked "detailed questions".[35] A September 2, 2004 CNN news article reported that "However, in a recent interview with the AP, bin Laden's estranged sister-in-law said she does not believe that family members have cut [Osama] off entirely. Carmen Binladin, who has changed the spelling of her name and lives in Switzerland, said bin Laden is not the only religious brother in the family, and she expects his sisters to support him as well. 'They are very close to Osama,' she said."[36]
Declassified FBI documents[edit]
In June 2007, Judicial Watch released partially declassified FBI documents on the flights obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request.[37] Eric Lichtblau, writing in the New York Times, said the heavily redacted documents "do not appear to contradict directly any of those central findings [of the Sept. 11 commission] but they raise some new questions about the episode." In several cases, "Saudi travelers were not interviewed before departing the country, and F.B.I. officials sought to determine how what seemed to be lapses had occurred."[38] Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said: "The documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which prove the FBI conducted a slapdash investigation of the Saudi flights."[37]
War in Iraq[edit]



 Saddam Hussein
The film suggests that the invasion of Iraq was an illegitimate attack on a sovereign nation – an unnecessary attack against an exaggerated threat. It makes a case against components of the Bush Doctrine, specifically against the concepts of pre-emptive war combined with American unilateralism. The film also contends that the focus of the United States should have been directed elsewhere.
Christopher Hitchens criticized the film for not mentioning the history of repression, aggression, war crimes and the general state of human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, nor Iraq's noncompliance with numerous United Nations resolutions.[3] Hitchens writes, "in this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic."[3] While interviewing Hitchens on his show, Scarborough claimed to be outraged at Moore's portrayal of the Iraqi insurgency, claiming Moore's film suggests "those killing Americans in Iraq aren't the enemy, but rather they are the revolution and the Minutemen, who are sure to win their battle against the occupation"[18] and that "Moore says that the enemy is George Bush and Saddam Hussein and Mr. Zarqawi and Mr. Bin Laden are no problem. ... Indeed, they are the Minutemen. They're the staunch American revolutionaries."[18]
Moore has frequently stated his opinion that Saddam was a brutal tyrant, though this opinion is not mentioned in the film. He said calling attention to Saddam's crimes was unnecessary considering the corporate media had continually pressed that point themselves, making it public knowledge.
“ Who doesn't know that Saddam was a bad guy? The media did a wonderful job hammering that home every day in order to convince the public that they should support the war. For 20 seconds in this film, I become essentially the only person to say, I want you to take a look at the human beings that were living in Iraq in 2003. [...] Anyone who takes that and says that I'm trying to say that Saddam's Iraq was some utopia is just a crackpot.[39] ”
Christopher Hitchens criticizes Moore for stating, in his film, that Iraq had not killed or attacked an American: "Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible."[3] Hitchens writes that Palestinian terrorists Muhammad Zaidan and Abu Nidal had been free to move in and out of Baghdad, and that Saddam's armed forces had exchanged fire and killed American soldiers during the first Gulf War. When interviewed by Jake Tapper, Moore denied having said Hussein's regime had not ever killed an American, insisting his movie had been misquoted: "That isn't what I said. Quote the movie directly. Murdered. The government of Iraq did not commit a premeditated murder on an American citizen."[30] His narration is reproduced verbatim in The Official Fahrenheit Reader, including a chapter on critiques and supporting evidence.[40]
Children of members of Congress serving in Iraq[edit]



 Congressman Mark Kennedy
Moore says that only one member of Congress had a child serving in Iraq: Army Staff Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD).[41] According to Karen Kucher, when Fahrenheit 9/11 was nearing release to the home-video market, two additional Congressmen's children were stationed in Iraq: the son of Congressman Duncan L. Hunter (R-CA), USMC Lieutenant Duncan D. Hunter (who was later elected to Congress himself); and the son of Joe Wilson (R-SC), Army National Guard Captain Alan Wilson.[42]
Fahrenheit 9/11 also used footage of Moore confronting various members of Congress, encouraging them to enlist their own children to fight in Iraq. Moore approached Congressman Mark Kennedy (R-MN) and showed Kennedy giving Moore a quizzical, confused look. Kennedy expressed displeasure about his portrayal, saying he offered to help Moore and also indicated he had a nephew serving in Afghanistan, but this was edited out of the film.[43]
Peter Damon lawsuit[edit]
Moore's inclusion of a 10-second clip with amputee Peter Damon has been criticized. Damon said the filmmaker "should be ashamed of himself" for claiming that soldiers were deceived into supporting the Iraq War and for using his injuries as reason to oppose the conflict. Damon "agree[s] with the President 100%. A lot of the guys down at Walter Reed feel the same way." According to Damon's doctor, Lt. Col. Chester Buckenmaier, Moore took "a very positive thing we're doing for soldiers" who lost limbs and "used it to tell a lie."[44] Responding to the criticism, associate producer Joanne Doroshow said, "Anybody who has seen the film knows we have nothing but the deepest respect for the soldiers who were wounded. One of the purposes of the movie was to examine the impossible situation they were put into and to raise questions about why they were sent there."[44]
Peter Damon sued Moore in federal court for $85 million, alleging that the film gave a false impression and was defamatory.[45] Moore's attorney argued in response that the film quoted Damon verbatim and did not take his statements out of context nor give a false impression. The judge agreed and dismissed Damon's suit.[46] In March 2008, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the ruling in Moore's favor.[47]
Unauthorized copying[edit]
Unauthorized copying of the film was widespread. An early version taped at a cinema was distributed using the peer-to-peer file sharing protocol BitTorrent.[48] The distributors expressed unhappiness and suggested potential legal action, but according to the Sunday Herald, Moore responded, "I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off of my labor".[49] A "mint copy" of the film possibly appeared on the Lions Gate website itself, reported The Inquirer.[50] Unlicensed screenings were also held in Cuba.[51]
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "'Fahrenheit 9/11' Web leak stirs controversy". MSNBC.
2.Jump up ^ "Moore defends ‘Fahrenheit’". CNN.
3.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i Hitchens, Christopher (June 21, 2004). "Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore". Slate magazine. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
4.Jump up ^ ""Fahrenheit 451" author wants title back". Hardball with Chris Matthews. June 29, 2004.
5.Jump up ^ "Call it a tale of two 'Fahrenheits'". MSNBC. June 29, 2004.
6.Jump up ^ Howard Gensler (June 16, 2004). "Moore controversy over '9/11 Fahrenheit'". Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original on November 19, 2004.
7.Jump up ^ John Gorenfeld (June 23, 2004). "Michael Moore terrorizes the Bushies!". Salon.
8.Jump up ^ FEC finding August 6, 2004
9.Jump up ^ FEC finding August 9, 2005
10.Jump up ^ Murray, Shailagh. "Fahrenheit 9/11 Has Recruited Unlikely Audience: U.S. Soldiers", The Wall Street Journal. July 12, 2004.
11.Jump up ^ Dalton, Stephen. Fahrenheit 9/11, The Times. October 16, 2004.
12.Jump up ^ Thomson, Desson. "Fahrenheit 9/11: Connecting with a Hard Left, Washington Post. May 18, 2004.
13.Jump up ^ Sullivan, Andrew. Blinded By The Light, Time magazine. July 12, 2004.
14.Jump up ^ McQuaig, Linda. "Fahrenheit 9/11 Places Real Issues in the Spotlight", The Toronto Star. July 11, 2004.
15.Jump up ^ Hamill, Denis. Moore's Message Delivered, Big-Time, New York Daily News. June 29, 2004.
16.Jump up ^ Koch, Edward. "Moore’s propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation", World Tribune. June 28, 2004.
17.Jump up ^ Jones, Terry. Truth or tale, experts analyse 'Fahrenheit 9/11', ABC Lateline. July 26, 2004.
18.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Scarborough Country for June 30, Transcript, MSNBC Scarborough Country, July 1, 2004.
19.Jump up ^ Edelstein, David. Proper Propaganda: Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is unfair and outrageous. You got a problem with that?, Slate magazine. June 24, 2004.
20.Jump up ^ Broudy, Oliver. America's unlikely defender, Salon magazine. April 6, 2005.
21.Jump up ^ Moore, Michael. Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11, michaelmoore.com, July 10, 2004.
22.Jump up ^ "Sarasota principal defends Bush from 'Fahrenheit 9/11' portrayal". THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. 2004-06-24.
23.Jump up ^ The Interrupted Reading: The Kids with George Bush on 9/11, Time.com, May 3, 2011
24.Jump up ^ "Improvising a Homeland Defense" (PDF)., page 22
25.Jump up ^ Bill Sammon (2002-10-07). "Suddenly, a time to lead". THE WASHINGTON TIMES.
26.Jump up ^ Himes, Stephen. Doublethink: Michael Moore, Christopher Hitchens, George Orwell and the Soul of the American Left, Flak magazine. August 6, 2004.
27.Jump up ^ Parry, Christopher. Slate's Chris Hitchens does a hatchet job on Michael Moore, eFilmCritic, September 27, 2004.
28.Jump up ^ Kagan, Daryn. Interview With Michael Moore, CNN Live Today, June 25, 2004.
29.Jump up ^ Craig Unger. "The Bush-Saudi Files: The Documents". House of Bush, House of Saud. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27.
30.^ Jump up to: a b Tapper, Jake. Having His Say … Michael Moore Calls Fahrenheit 9/11 a Valid, Alternate View, ABC News. June 25, 2004.
31.Jump up ^ Moore, Michael. The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader, Penguin Books, 2004.
32.Jump up ^ York, Byron. How did assorted bin Ladens get out of America after September 11? National Review. September 29, 2003.
33.^ Jump up to: a b "Who let bin Ladens leave U.S.?"; Bolton, Alexander; The Hill. May 18, 2004.
34.^ Jump up to: a b Bolton, Alexander. "Clarke claims responsibility", The Hill. May 26, 2004.
35.Jump up ^ "Immediate Response to 9/11: The Saudi Flights" (PDF). National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. p. 12.
36.Jump up ^ The Associated Press (September 2, 2004). "Bin Laden's wealth not the force behind 9/11". CNN.
37.^ Jump up to: a b Federal Bureau of Investigation (June 22, 2007). "JW Releases New FBI Documents: Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11". Judicial Watch.
38.Jump up ^ Lichtblau, Eric. New Details on F.B.I. Aid for Saudis After 9/11 New York Times. March 27, 2005.
39.Jump up ^ Fierman, Daniel (2004-07-09). "The Passion Of Michael Moore". Entertainment Weekly.
40.Jump up ^ "Iraq," Moore's narration proceeds, is "a nation that had never attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen." Moore, Michael. The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader, Penguin Books, 2004.
41.Jump up ^ "Factual Back-Up for Fahrenheit 9/11: Section Six". Michael Moore.
42.Jump up ^ Karen Kucher. "Serving on two fronts". San Diego Union-Tribune.
43.Jump up ^ Hanna Rosin and Mike Allen (June 24, 2004). "'Fahrenheit 9/11' Is a Red-Hot Ticket". Washington Post.
44.^ Jump up to: a b Sisk, Richard. G.I. pans '9/11' role, New York Daily News. August 15, 2004.
45.Jump up ^ Jennifer Fermino (June 1, 2006). "Iraq Vet Sues Michael Moore for Misleading Interview in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'". Fox News.
46.Jump up ^ Associated Press (December 20, 2006). "US judge rejects Iraq war veteran's lawsuit over 'Fahrenheit 9/11'". International Herald Tribune.
47.Jump up ^ Disabled veteran's suit against Michael Moore dismissed, CBC News. March 28, 2008.
48.Jump up ^ Moore: pirate my film, no problem The Sunday Herald July 4, 2004.
49.Jump up ^ Iain S Bruce (July 5, 2004). "Moore: Go ahead, pirate my movie". Sunday Herald.
50.Jump up ^ Michael Moore gives thumbs up to file sharers The Inquirer July 7, 2004.
51.Jump up ^ Fahrenheit clear of Oscar threat BBC News August 4, 2004.
External links[edit]
Fahrenheit 9/11 War Room Contains notes, sources and Michael Moore's response to various critics of his film
Interview with Urban Hamid Embedded filmmaker who shot some of the Iraqi footage in the film
Unfairenheit 9/11 A critical essay by Christopher Hitchens A Defense of Fahrenheit 9/11 A point-by-point response to Christopher Hitchens
Under the Hot Lights by Michael Isikoff Michael Isikoff and Newsweek Magazine Deceive the Public About Fahrenheit 9/11 By Michael Moore
By Way of Deception by Stuart Klawans
The Wrong Way to Fix the Vote by Gregory Palast
 


Categories: Michael Moore
2004 controversies
Media-related controversies in the United States
Political controversies in the United States




Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk










Read

Edit

View history
















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikimedia Shop

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools










Print/export





Languages
Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 January 2014 at 13:47.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
 Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki
   








Amending our Terms of Use:
 Please comment on a proposed amendment regarding undisclosed paid editing.
 [ Help with translations! ] 
close
Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search




Fahrenheit 9/11 poster
The documentary film Fahrenheit 9/11 generated, and even courted controversy since it was first announced, even before its release just prior to the U.S. presidential election, 2004. The film by Michael Moore criticizes the Bush administration's attempt to pursue Osama bin Laden in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, as well as the Iraq War. Several commentators have criticized the film for factual and contextual inaccuracies.[1][2][3]


Contents  [hide]
1 Ray Bradbury's title dispute
2 Move America Forward's letter-writing campaign
3 Citizens United's FEC challenge
4 Controversy over the film's content 4.1 Bush reading to school children
4.2 Alleged discrepancy on Osama's presumed innocence
4.3 Saudi flights 4.3.1 Approval of the flights
4.3.2 The FBI's denial that it had a role in approving the flights
4.3.3 Alleged lack of cooperation from the White House
4.3.4 Interviewing of bin Laden relatives
4.3.5 Declassified FBI documents
4.4 War in Iraq 4.4.1 Children of members of Congress serving in Iraq
4.5 Peter Damon lawsuit
5 Unauthorized copying
6 References
7 External links

Ray Bradbury's title dispute[edit]
The title of the film refers to Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451 and the September 11 attacks of 2001. The Fahrenheit 451 reference is emphasized by the film's tagline "The temperature where freedom burns" (compare with Fahrenheit 451's tagline, "The temperature at which books burn"). Moore has stated that the title came from the subject of an e-mail he received from a fan shortly after September 11.
Bradbury was upset by what he considered the appropriation of his title. He wanted the film renamed.[4][5]
Move America Forward's letter-writing campaign[edit]
The conservative political action group Move America Forward mounted a letter-writing campaign pressuring theater chains not to screen the film, which it compared to "an al-Qaeda training video."[6] "We've been causing them [the cinemas] an enormous amount of aggravation", said group member and talk radio host Melanie Morgan.[7]
Citizens United's FEC challenge[edit]
Citizens United, a conservative group run by David Bossie, filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission charging that ads for the film constitute political advertising and thus may not be aired 60 days before an election or 30 days before a party convention. On August 5, the FEC unanimously dismissed the complaint finding no evidence that the movie's ads had broken the law.[8] A further complaint filed in 2005 was also rejected.[9]
Controversy over the film's content[edit]
Shailagh Murray described Fahrenheit 9/11 in The Wall Street Journal as a "harshly satirical and controversial portrait of the Bush presidency."[10] Stephen Dalton of The Times wrote that the movie "hits enough of its satirical targets to qualify as an important and timely film."[11] Desson Thomson says "there is more to Fahrenheit 9/11 than partisan ridicule. ... What's remarkable here isn't Moore's political animosity or ticklish wit. It's the well-argued, heartfelt power of his persuasion."[12] Author and blogger Andrew Sullivan expressed the opposite view, writing that Moore's film is "deeply corrosive of the possibility of real debate and reason in our culture."[13] Canadian journalist Linda McQuaig wrote in response to Sullivan: "Hell, the media shut down real debate long ago. It is precisely because the debate has been so thoroughly corroded by the mainstream media ... that Moore's film is being so gratefully received by so many."[14] Denis Hamill considers Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a "corrective to the daily drumbeat of right-wing talk radio."[15]
English-American journalist and literary critic Christopher Hitchens and Democratic politician Ed Koch contend that Fahrenheit 9/11 contains distortions and untruths and is propaganda.[3][16][17] Hitchens also compared Michael Moore to Leni Riefenstahl in his critique for Slate magazine: "Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl."[3] He later labeled Moore "a completely promiscuous opportunist [and] extremely callous person."[18]
Author and political commentator Peter Holding called Hitchens' analogy "hysterical, unfair and offensive," adding that "some of the criticism directed towards Moore's film displays the very same characteristics for which Moore's film has been criticised". Fellow Slate columnist and Iraq war critic David Edelstein, though generally supportive of the film, wrote Fahrenheit 9/11 "is an act of counterpropaganda that has a boorish, bullying force", but called it a "legitimate abuse of power."[19] Prominent left-wing intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy agreed the war was "a bad idea", but was sympathetic to the neoconservative point of view and disagreed with what he perceived to be the film's "core" argument, that "we have no reason to be interfering" in the Middle East.[20] Joe Scarborough alleges that Moore has ducked criticism and dodged interviews from both himself and Hitchens.[18]
Moore has published both a list of facts and sources for Fahrenheit 9/11 and a document establishing agreements between the points made in his film and the findings of the 9/11 Commission (the independent, bipartisan panel directed by Congress and Bush to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks).[21]
Bush reading to school children[edit]



 US President George W. Bush being told about the second plane hitting the World Trade Center in a classroom at Emma E. Booker Elementary School.
Early on in the film, Moore explains that Bush continued reading "The Pet Goat" with a classroom of second graders at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida for an extended period of time after being told of the attacks.
The school's principal, Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell, explained, "I don't think anyone could have handled it better. What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"[22] Some of the schoolchildren, now grown, have expressed similar views; Mariah Williams, one of the students, stated in 2011 that, "I'm just glad he didn't get up and leave because then I would have been more scared and confused."[23]
A 9/11 Commission Staff Report entitled Improvising a Homeland Defense said: "The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening."[24]
According to senior White House correspondent Bill Sammon and his inside look at the Bush administration's response to 9/11, Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was holding up a legal pad upon which he had written a message telling Bush not to say anything yet.[25]
Alleged discrepancy on Osama's presumed innocence[edit]



 Christopher Hitchens
According to Christopher Hitchens, Moore had argued in a previous public debate that Osama bin Laden was to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and thus questions the treatment of bin Laden in the film. "Something – I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now – has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous 'distraction' from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion."[3] Hitchens was subsequently invited to appear on Joe Scarborough's MSNBC talk show, Scarborough Country, at which point a tape recording of his debate with Moore at the Telluride Film Festival in 2002 was replayed.[18]

Moore: It seems as if he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured, and brought to justice.
Hitchens: What is the "if" doing in that last sentence of yours?
Moore: Well, all people are innocent until proven guilty in this country. ... Even the worst piece of scum.
Hitchens: I feel I have to press you on that. You regard it as an open question, the responsibility of Osama bin Laden?
Moore: Until anyone is convicted of any crime, no matter how horrific the crime, they are innocent until proven guilty. And as Americans...
Hitchens: No, that's all I asked you.
Moore: Never leave that position.
Hitchens: I'm sorry. So bin Laden's claims of responsibility strike you as the ravings of a clown's, say?
When the video ended, Hitchens proceeded to explain: "Why does someone who thought that Osama was innocent and Afghanistan was no problem suddenly switch in this way? Because unless he says that he was dead wrong all along and Osama Laden was innocent and wronged, he can't say that everything else is a distraction from the hunt for Osama." Host Joe Scarborough agreed with Hitchens and criticised Moore for inconsistency, accusing him of "hypocrisy" for assuming bin Laden is innocent one minute "and yet, in this movie, at the very beginning, he criticizes George Bush for not assuming the bin Laden family is somehow guilty, then letting them out of the country."
Flak magazine editor Stephen Himes, after watching Scarborough Country and reviewing a transcript of the Telluride debate, wrote that Hitchens had misconstrued Moore's remarks: "Hitchens actually performs some Clintonian semantic gymnastics here. Moore's if is not intending 'I think Osama is innocent and the Afghan war is unjustified;' he's trying to make an argument for American due process: 'If he and his group were the ones who did this, then they should be tracked down, captured and brought to justice'."[26] Film critic Christopher Parry also took issue with Hitchens' interpretation of Moore's remarks, writing "If you've got to build a case against Jeffery Dahmer, you've got to build a case against Bin Laden."

Allow me to explain Moore's motivation, as if it needed explaining to anyone with a concept of logic, law and due process. Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. That is the American Way. Indeed, it's the World Way. But in order to prove his guilt, one must build a case, capture him and put him to trial... But in Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore has a different point to make. What he's saying in Fahrenheit 9/11 is, why, exactly, when the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden is completely justified, have only 14,000 troops been sent after him, while ten times that number have been sent into Iraq to take over a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?[27]
CNN news anchor Daryn Kagan asked Moore why, if he is so willing to uphold the law, he could also be critical of the Bush administration for pursuing Osama bin Laden at the same time. Moore replied:

Because if you have a suspect and the suspect gets away, the police, or our military, have a right to go after and get that suspect. In fact, they should go get the suspect. And Richard Clarke's point, and my point is, is that they make a half-hearted effort ... because they didn't want to divert resources from what their main goal was, which was to go in and invade Iraq. And that's what they've been about since Day 1.[28]
Saudi flights[edit]
Moore implicates the White House in allowing relatives of Osama bin Laden to leave the United States without being interviewed at length by the FBI. In his narration in the movie, Moore states that "At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the U.S. after September 13." Moore based this statement on the research of Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, whom he interviewed for the film. Passenger lists can be found at the House of Bush website.[29]
Approval of the flights[edit]



 Richard Clarke
Christopher Hitchens points to a statement by former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke when interviewed by The Hill newspaper in May 2004, in which "he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing [the] Saudi departures."[3] Hitchens says that Moore interviewed Clarke and "either he didn't ask Clarke, who authorized those flights, or Clarke told him it was me and only me, and he didn't think it was good enough to use. ... Either way, that's below the level of trash TV, trash journalism."[18] After quitting his White House position, Clarke became a prominent critic of the Bush administration's war on terrorism. Hitchens contends that the film does not mention Clarke's remarks so that it can criticize Bush for not going after Bin Laden's family, while holding up Clarke as a heroic, anti-war figure.[3]
The filmmaker defended himself in an interview with ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper, answering: "Actually I do [display the] article and it's blown up 40 foot on the screen, you can see Richard Clarke's name right there saying that he approved the flights based on the information the FBI gave him. It's right there, right up on the screen. I don't agree with Clarke on this point. Just because I think he's good on a lot of things doesn't mean I agree with him on everything."[30]
Moore, on his website and in The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader, points to additional statements by Richard Clarke, also published in The Hill, which he believes support his contention that the White House approved the flights.[31] The following is a chronological summary:
September 3, 2003: In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism, Clarke said: "It is true that members of the bin Laden family were among those who left. We knew that at the time. I can't say much more in open session, but it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House."[32]
March 24, 2004: In testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Clarke indicated that the request was not abnormal, "The Saudi embassy, therefore, asked for these people to be evacuated; the same sort of thing that we do all the time in similar crises, evacuating Americans. The request came to me and I refused to approve it." He goes on to explain that the FBI eventually approved the flights and he describes conversations in which the FBI has said that there was no one who left on those flights who the FBI now wants to interview.
March 24, 2004: "I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. The two – since you press me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State or the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know."
May 25, 2004: In an interview with The Hill newspaper, published the following day, Clarke said: "I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again." He went on to say that "It didn't get any higher than me... On 9–11, 9–12 and 9–13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI."
The FBI's denial that it had a role in approving the flights[edit]
On May 18, 2004, Washington newspaper The Hill quoted FBI spokesman on counterterrorism John Iannarelli as denying that the FBI had any "role in facilitating these flights one way or another."[33] The FBI's denial of involvement was repeated to The Hill by another spokesperson, Donna Spiser, in a May 26, 2004 article. She is quoted as saying "We haven't had anything to do with arranging and clearing the flights."[34] She states that the FBI's involvement was limited to interviewing those people on the flight it thought were of interest: "We did know who was on the flights and interviewed anyone we thought we needed to."
Alleged lack of cooperation from the White House[edit]
The May 18 article in The Hill, which was published prior to Clarke's May 25 claim of responsibility, quoted 9/11 Commission vice-chair Lee H. Hamilton as saying: "We don't know who authorized [the flights]. We've asked that question 50 times." A May 26 article in The Hill quoted another Commission member, Tim Roemer, as being unconvinced by Clarke's claim of sole responsibility for approving the flights: "It doesn't seem that Richard Clarke had enough information to clear it... I just don't think that the questions are resolved, and we need to dig deeper... Clarke sure didn't seem to say that he was the final decisionmaker. I believe we need to continue to look for some more answers."[34]
Allegations concerning the Bush administration's refusal to provide information to the 9/11 Commission about the Saudi flights are disputed. The May 18, 2004 article in The Hill says that Commission vice-chairman Lee Hamilton "disclosed the administration's refusal to answer questions on the sensitive subject during a recent closed-door meeting with a group of Democratic senators, according to several Democratic sources." It also says that Republican Commission member John Lehman "said... that he told the senators the White House has been fully cooperative." President Bush, who met privately with the Saudi Arabian ambassador on the morning of Sept. 13, 2001, is suspected of personally authorizing the controversial flights while all other air travel had been halted.[33]
Interviewing of bin Laden relatives[edit]
Moore interviews author Craig Unger and retired FBI agent Jack Cloonan, both of whom say bin Laden family members were not questioned in a serious manner at length before being allowed to leave. The September 11 Commission has found that 22 of the 26 people on the "bin Laden" flight were interviewed before being allowed to leave the country with many being asked "detailed questions".[35] A September 2, 2004 CNN news article reported that "However, in a recent interview with the AP, bin Laden's estranged sister-in-law said she does not believe that family members have cut [Osama] off entirely. Carmen Binladin, who has changed the spelling of her name and lives in Switzerland, said bin Laden is not the only religious brother in the family, and she expects his sisters to support him as well. 'They are very close to Osama,' she said."[36]
Declassified FBI documents[edit]
In June 2007, Judicial Watch released partially declassified FBI documents on the flights obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request.[37] Eric Lichtblau, writing in the New York Times, said the heavily redacted documents "do not appear to contradict directly any of those central findings [of the Sept. 11 commission] but they raise some new questions about the episode." In several cases, "Saudi travelers were not interviewed before departing the country, and F.B.I. officials sought to determine how what seemed to be lapses had occurred."[38] Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said: "The documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which prove the FBI conducted a slapdash investigation of the Saudi flights."[37]
War in Iraq[edit]



 Saddam Hussein
The film suggests that the invasion of Iraq was an illegitimate attack on a sovereign nation – an unnecessary attack against an exaggerated threat. It makes a case against components of the Bush Doctrine, specifically against the concepts of pre-emptive war combined with American unilateralism. The film also contends that the focus of the United States should have been directed elsewhere.
Christopher Hitchens criticized the film for not mentioning the history of repression, aggression, war crimes and the general state of human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, nor Iraq's noncompliance with numerous United Nations resolutions.[3] Hitchens writes, "in this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don't think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic."[3] While interviewing Hitchens on his show, Scarborough claimed to be outraged at Moore's portrayal of the Iraqi insurgency, claiming Moore's film suggests "those killing Americans in Iraq aren't the enemy, but rather they are the revolution and the Minutemen, who are sure to win their battle against the occupation"[18] and that "Moore says that the enemy is George Bush and Saddam Hussein and Mr. Zarqawi and Mr. Bin Laden are no problem. ... Indeed, they are the Minutemen. They're the staunch American revolutionaries."[18]
Moore has frequently stated his opinion that Saddam was a brutal tyrant, though this opinion is not mentioned in the film. He said calling attention to Saddam's crimes was unnecessary considering the corporate media had continually pressed that point themselves, making it public knowledge.
“ Who doesn't know that Saddam was a bad guy? The media did a wonderful job hammering that home every day in order to convince the public that they should support the war. For 20 seconds in this film, I become essentially the only person to say, I want you to take a look at the human beings that were living in Iraq in 2003. [...] Anyone who takes that and says that I'm trying to say that Saddam's Iraq was some utopia is just a crackpot.[39] ”
Christopher Hitchens criticizes Moore for stating, in his film, that Iraq had not killed or attacked an American: "Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible."[3] Hitchens writes that Palestinian terrorists Muhammad Zaidan and Abu Nidal had been free to move in and out of Baghdad, and that Saddam's armed forces had exchanged fire and killed American soldiers during the first Gulf War. When interviewed by Jake Tapper, Moore denied having said Hussein's regime had not ever killed an American, insisting his movie had been misquoted: "That isn't what I said. Quote the movie directly. Murdered. The government of Iraq did not commit a premeditated murder on an American citizen."[30] His narration is reproduced verbatim in The Official Fahrenheit Reader, including a chapter on critiques and supporting evidence.[40]
Children of members of Congress serving in Iraq[edit]



 Congressman Mark Kennedy
Moore says that only one member of Congress had a child serving in Iraq: Army Staff Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD).[41] According to Karen Kucher, when Fahrenheit 9/11 was nearing release to the home-video market, two additional Congressmen's children were stationed in Iraq: the son of Congressman Duncan L. Hunter (R-CA), USMC Lieutenant Duncan D. Hunter (who was later elected to Congress himself); and the son of Joe Wilson (R-SC), Army National Guard Captain Alan Wilson.[42]
Fahrenheit 9/11 also used footage of Moore confronting various members of Congress, encouraging them to enlist their own children to fight in Iraq. Moore approached Congressman Mark Kennedy (R-MN) and showed Kennedy giving Moore a quizzical, confused look. Kennedy expressed displeasure about his portrayal, saying he offered to help Moore and also indicated he had a nephew serving in Afghanistan, but this was edited out of the film.[43]
Peter Damon lawsuit[edit]
Moore's inclusion of a 10-second clip with amputee Peter Damon has been criticized. Damon said the filmmaker "should be ashamed of himself" for claiming that soldiers were deceived into supporting the Iraq War and for using his injuries as reason to oppose the conflict. Damon "agree[s] with the President 100%. A lot of the guys down at Walter Reed feel the same way." According to Damon's doctor, Lt. Col. Chester Buckenmaier, Moore took "a very positive thing we're doing for soldiers" who lost limbs and "used it to tell a lie."[44] Responding to the criticism, associate producer Joanne Doroshow said, "Anybody who has seen the film knows we have nothing but the deepest respect for the soldiers who were wounded. One of the purposes of the movie was to examine the impossible situation they were put into and to raise questions about why they were sent there."[44]
Peter Damon sued Moore in federal court for $85 million, alleging that the film gave a false impression and was defamatory.[45] Moore's attorney argued in response that the film quoted Damon verbatim and did not take his statements out of context nor give a false impression. The judge agreed and dismissed Damon's suit.[46] In March 2008, the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the ruling in Moore's favor.[47]
Unauthorized copying[edit]
Unauthorized copying of the film was widespread. An early version taped at a cinema was distributed using the peer-to-peer file sharing protocol BitTorrent.[48] The distributors expressed unhappiness and suggested potential legal action, but according to the Sunday Herald, Moore responded, "I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off of my labor".[49] A "mint copy" of the film possibly appeared on the Lions Gate website itself, reported The Inquirer.[50] Unlicensed screenings were also held in Cuba.[51]
References[edit]
1.Jump up ^ "'Fahrenheit 9/11' Web leak stirs controversy". MSNBC.
2.Jump up ^ "Moore defends ‘Fahrenheit’". CNN.
3.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i Hitchens, Christopher (June 21, 2004). "Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore". Slate magazine. Retrieved June 12, 2013.
4.Jump up ^ ""Fahrenheit 451" author wants title back". Hardball with Chris Matthews. June 29, 2004.
5.Jump up ^ "Call it a tale of two 'Fahrenheits'". MSNBC. June 29, 2004.
6.Jump up ^ Howard Gensler (June 16, 2004). "Moore controversy over '9/11 Fahrenheit'". Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original on November 19, 2004.
7.Jump up ^ John Gorenfeld (June 23, 2004). "Michael Moore terrorizes the Bushies!". Salon.
8.Jump up ^ FEC finding August 6, 2004
9.Jump up ^ FEC finding August 9, 2005
10.Jump up ^ Murray, Shailagh. "Fahrenheit 9/11 Has Recruited Unlikely Audience: U.S. Soldiers", The Wall Street Journal. July 12, 2004.
11.Jump up ^ Dalton, Stephen. Fahrenheit 9/11, The Times. October 16, 2004.
12.Jump up ^ Thomson, Desson. "Fahrenheit 9/11: Connecting with a Hard Left, Washington Post. May 18, 2004.
13.Jump up ^ Sullivan, Andrew. Blinded By The Light, Time magazine. July 12, 2004.
14.Jump up ^ McQuaig, Linda. "Fahrenheit 9/11 Places Real Issues in the Spotlight", The Toronto Star. July 11, 2004.
15.Jump up ^ Hamill, Denis. Moore's Message Delivered, Big-Time, New York Daily News. June 29, 2004.
16.Jump up ^ Koch, Edward. "Moore’s propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation", World Tribune. June 28, 2004.
17.Jump up ^ Jones, Terry. Truth or tale, experts analyse 'Fahrenheit 9/11', ABC Lateline. July 26, 2004.
18.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Scarborough Country for June 30, Transcript, MSNBC Scarborough Country, July 1, 2004.
19.Jump up ^ Edelstein, David. Proper Propaganda: Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is unfair and outrageous. You got a problem with that?, Slate magazine. June 24, 2004.
20.Jump up ^ Broudy, Oliver. America's unlikely defender, Salon magazine. April 6, 2005.
21.Jump up ^ Moore, Michael. Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11, michaelmoore.com, July 10, 2004.
22.Jump up ^ "Sarasota principal defends Bush from 'Fahrenheit 9/11' portrayal". THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. 2004-06-24.
23.Jump up ^ The Interrupted Reading: The Kids with George Bush on 9/11, Time.com, May 3, 2011
24.Jump up ^ "Improvising a Homeland Defense" (PDF)., page 22
25.Jump up ^ Bill Sammon (2002-10-07). "Suddenly, a time to lead". THE WASHINGTON TIMES.
26.Jump up ^ Himes, Stephen. Doublethink: Michael Moore, Christopher Hitchens, George Orwell and the Soul of the American Left, Flak magazine. August 6, 2004.
27.Jump up ^ Parry, Christopher. Slate's Chris Hitchens does a hatchet job on Michael Moore, eFilmCritic, September 27, 2004.
28.Jump up ^ Kagan, Daryn. Interview With Michael Moore, CNN Live Today, June 25, 2004.
29.Jump up ^ Craig Unger. "The Bush-Saudi Files: The Documents". House of Bush, House of Saud. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27.
30.^ Jump up to: a b Tapper, Jake. Having His Say … Michael Moore Calls Fahrenheit 9/11 a Valid, Alternate View, ABC News. June 25, 2004.
31.Jump up ^ Moore, Michael. The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader, Penguin Books, 2004.
32.Jump up ^ York, Byron. How did assorted bin Ladens get out of America after September 11? National Review. September 29, 2003.
33.^ Jump up to: a b "Who let bin Ladens leave U.S.?"; Bolton, Alexander; The Hill. May 18, 2004.
34.^ Jump up to: a b Bolton, Alexander. "Clarke claims responsibility", The Hill. May 26, 2004.
35.Jump up ^ "Immediate Response to 9/11: The Saudi Flights" (PDF). National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. p. 12.
36.Jump up ^ The Associated Press (September 2, 2004). "Bin Laden's wealth not the force behind 9/11". CNN.
37.^ Jump up to: a b Federal Bureau of Investigation (June 22, 2007). "JW Releases New FBI Documents: Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11". Judicial Watch.
38.Jump up ^ Lichtblau, Eric. New Details on F.B.I. Aid for Saudis After 9/11 New York Times. March 27, 2005.
39.Jump up ^ Fierman, Daniel (2004-07-09). "The Passion Of Michael Moore". Entertainment Weekly.
40.Jump up ^ "Iraq," Moore's narration proceeds, is "a nation that had never attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen." Moore, Michael. The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader, Penguin Books, 2004.
41.Jump up ^ "Factual Back-Up for Fahrenheit 9/11: Section Six". Michael Moore.
42.Jump up ^ Karen Kucher. "Serving on two fronts". San Diego Union-Tribune.
43.Jump up ^ Hanna Rosin and Mike Allen (June 24, 2004). "'Fahrenheit 9/11' Is a Red-Hot Ticket". Washington Post.
44.^ Jump up to: a b Sisk, Richard. G.I. pans '9/11' role, New York Daily News. August 15, 2004.
45.Jump up ^ Jennifer Fermino (June 1, 2006). "Iraq Vet Sues Michael Moore for Misleading Interview in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'". Fox News.
46.Jump up ^ Associated Press (December 20, 2006). "US judge rejects Iraq war veteran's lawsuit over 'Fahrenheit 9/11'". International Herald Tribune.
47.Jump up ^ Disabled veteran's suit against Michael Moore dismissed, CBC News. March 28, 2008.
48.Jump up ^ Moore: pirate my film, no problem The Sunday Herald July 4, 2004.
49.Jump up ^ Iain S Bruce (July 5, 2004). "Moore: Go ahead, pirate my movie". Sunday Herald.
50.Jump up ^ Michael Moore gives thumbs up to file sharers The Inquirer July 7, 2004.
51.Jump up ^ Fahrenheit clear of Oscar threat BBC News August 4, 2004.
External links[edit]
Fahrenheit 9/11 War Room Contains notes, sources and Michael Moore's response to various critics of his film
Interview with Urban Hamid Embedded filmmaker who shot some of the Iraqi footage in the film
Unfairenheit 9/11 A critical essay by Christopher Hitchens A Defense of Fahrenheit 9/11 A point-by-point response to Christopher Hitchens
Under the Hot Lights by Michael Isikoff Michael Isikoff and Newsweek Magazine Deceive the Public About Fahrenheit 9/11 By Michael Moore
By Way of Deception by Stuart Klawans
The Wrong Way to Fix the Vote by Gregory Palast
 


Categories: Michael Moore
2004 controversies
Media-related controversies in the United States
Political controversies in the United States




Navigation menu



Create account
Log in



Article

Talk










Read

Edit

View history
















Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikimedia Shop

Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools










Print/export





Languages
Edit links
This page was last modified on 13 January 2014 at 13:47.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
 Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Mobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki