MEDIA BIASED? OF COURSE! BUT FILM CRITICS TOO?
Rants and Raves From the Left on Moore's Film

Pretty funny. And true. If Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary, then The Passion of The Christ is too. Via WSJ's James Taranto, posted at Beautiful Atrocities:

Blogger Jeff Percifield collects blurbs from the same reviewers on Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" and Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," and the results are often hilarious, as the critics laud Moore for the same reasons they damned Gibson.

A.O. Scott, New York Times:

"Fahrenheit": "Mr. Moore's populist instincts have never been sharper. . . . He is a credit to the republic."

"Passion": "Gibson has exploited the popular appetite for terror and gore for what he and his allies see as a higher end."

Ty Burr, Boston Globe:

"Fahrenheit": "Should be seen because it takes off the gloves and wades into the fray, because it synthesizes the anti-Bush argument like no other work before it, and because it forces you to decide for yourself exactly where passion starts to warp point of view."

"Passion": "If you come seeking theological subtlety, let alone such modern inventions as psychological depth, you'll walk away battered and empty-handed."

David Edelstein, Slate:

"Fahrenheit": After the screening, a friend railed that Moore was exploiting a mother's grief. I suggested that the scene made moral sense in the context of the director's universe, that the exploitation is justified if it saves the lives of other mothers' sons.

"Passion": "A two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie--The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre--that thinks it's an act of faith."

Eric Harrison, Houston Chronicle:

"Fahrenheit": "[Moore] is an indispensable treasure, and his imperfections are part of the reason, because they mark him as real."

"Passion": "It's awful because everything he knows about storytelling has been swept aside by proselytizing zeal."

Geoff Pevre, Toronto Star:

"Fahrenheit": "A plea for America's deliverance. . . . It may not be an argument one agrees with, and it may be unbalanced and propagandistic, but it is both convincingly argued and sincerely motivated."

"Passion": "A work of fundamentalist pornography."

David Sterrit, Christian Science Monitor:

"Fahrenheit": "Is the label 'documentary' appropriate for this openly activist movie? Of course it is, unless you cling to some idealized notion of 'objective' film."

"Passion": "The highly selective screenplay includes only a few of Jesus' words, spoken in occasional flashback scenes."

James Verniere, Boston Herald:

"Fahrenheit": "At a time when the film industry is turning out sugarcoated, content-free junk, Moore has given American viewers a renewed taste for raw meat."

"Passion": "An exercise in sadomasochistic bullying."


GREAT UPDATE. Ed Koch blasts Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11. From AlwaysOn:

Fahrenheit 9/11 propaganda film cheapens debate, polarizes nation
Ed Koch, mayor of New York City from 1978 to 1989, tees-off on Michael Moore's "documentary."

...A year after 9/11, I was part of a panel discussion on BBC-TV's "Question Time" show which aired live in the United Kingdom. A portion of my commentary at that time follows:

"One of the panelists was Michael Moore, writer and director of the award-winning documentary "Roger & Me." During the warm-up before the studio audience, Moore said something along the lines of "I don't know why we are making so much of an act of terror. It is three times more likely that you will be struck by lightening than die from an act of terror." I was aghast and responded, "I think what you have said is outrageous, particularly when we are today commemorating the deaths of 3,000 people resulting from an act of terror." I mention this exchange because it was not televised, occurring as it did before the show went live. It shows where he was coming from long before he produced Fahrenheit 9/11."