I think Emerson writes a great article comaparing both Moore's and Morris's efforts. He does not champion either one, but instead suggests reasons why both failed to present a fair argument. Emerson mentions the tone at which Moore made his claims. Emerson suggests that if Moore would have asked more serious and direct questions, his argument would have been better supported. "Fahrenhype 9/11" features a more rhetorically given arugments, but they are more centered on ripping Moore's name and his claims, instead of directly stating facts on what happened. Niether Moore nor Morris left room for the viewer to come up with their own conclusions, they provided it for them.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is definitely known for its propragandist style. "Fahrenhype 9/11" is exactly the same way, it just offers propraganda at a different style and pace. Both of these docs present you with inforamtion and testimonials which appeal to your reason and emotions. They both involve reputation bashing and name calling. It is a battle in which no one truly won. Emerson does note that both films may have had some valid points. However, they are both lacking what they claim to have, the truth.
Emerson writes an article that compares both Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and Morris' "FahrenHYPE 9/11". He doesn't side with one particular film, rather he agrees with aspects of both films, for example right from the beginning he says, "I find it difficult to forgive George W. Bush a lot of things -- mostly having to do with not telling the truth about important public matters, and then pretending it was no big deal that he had mislead...".
He goes on to say that just because one documentary (or "prop-umentary") is "wrong", does not make the other documentary "right". Another thing I really like about this article is, how Emerson points out about Morris's "FahrenHYPE 9/11" while it talks about the "facts" Michael Moore's film did not have, the only thing that Morris's film did was put an emphasis on "on rhetorically smearing Moore, as indicated by the direct quotations above, than in rebutting the questions raised (and/or aspersions cast) in "Fahrenheit 9/11."
I feel like both of these are propaganda documentaries as much as they come, the real difference between these two are the sides they take, a left vs right wing side.
I enjoyed Emerson's article about Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and Morris' "Fahrenhype 9/11". He stated that Moore's film was in poor taste mainly because of how he presented his information and the simple fact that his arguments were not backed up completely. Moore's arguments were mainly his own opinion on the matter. Morris' film demonstrated disgust for Moore's film and questioned him as a filmmaker. Both films were made so that the viewer could see that particular point of view instead of being unbiased and neutral, which is how I think a documentary should be.
Both films are continunously are bad-mouthing another person so it doesn't really make one wrong or right, it just makes them different. Moore makes a mockery out of Bush and Morris described how horrible and wrong Moore was to do so. I feel like this doesn't make Morris a better person, but brings him down to Moore's level. "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Fahrenhype 9/11" both have valid points for what would be a propaganda documentary. Although they need more facts and less opinions.
“FahrenHYPE 9/11” puts a lot of focus on how Michael Moore’s film “Fahrenheit 9/11” is factually wrong rather than providing other perspectives on the main subject in Moore’s film. The article discusses how “FahrenHYPE 9/11” film is merely “smearing” Moore’s film by interviewing subjects previously interviewed (in Moore’s film) and collecting their unaltered opinions instead of presenting these opinions out of context. The author of the article, Jim Emerson, explains how both of the films “fail” in a sense by displaying false information (Fahrenheit 9/11) then feeding off of that false information (FahrenHYPE 9/11) instead of revealing the actual truth.
Both of the films have an almost identical format when it comes to the name-calling, propaganda style, and overall layout of their arguments. Neither of the films leave room for the viewer’s opinion; rather they just relentlessly slap the viewer with the “right” opinion, which would be their opinion. With this being said, both of the films are somewhat entertaining to watch, but completely fail to let the viewer decide what’s right and what’s wrong.
I am really happy that we watched FahrenHYPE 9/11. But, I do think that it is extremely important to watch Michael Moore's documentary before this one. I think that, obviously, because FahrenHYPE 9/11 is a direct response to Fahrenheit 9/11. I thought that the way this documentary was filmed was a million times more ethical and factual than Michael Moore's film. Fahrenhype really just made me realize exactly how much crap Moore was full of. In Fahrenhype the statements that are made are backed up by facts, something Moore did not do. I especially liked who was interviewed in this film. I like how the story was told more by the interviewees and not by the narrator. This film was not trying to shove an opinion down your throat, it was just giving facts. Although this documentary did not hold my attention quite like Michael Moore's documentary did, I still think that it was very well put together.
In the reading, the author says that he does not agree with how some of the interviewees were bullying Moore by "name calling." I really disagree with this. The way that Moore treated Bush, I think that Moore deserved to be called whatever names the interviewees gave him. But I did like the reading, because the person had a different view on most things than I did.
“FahrenHYPE 9/11” by Jim Emerson provides a neutral, unbiased look at the center of both films. I think Emerson does a great job in showing the similarities of all the biasness in the films. Whether it was Fahrenheit 9/11, or Fahrenhype 9/11, both have their own style of trickery in the films. Moore basically attacks the republicans and George W. Bush in his own "comical," way which offends many people. Moore's movie comes off a propaganda rather than a documentary. On the other hand, Morris's film comes off as a more "truthful" attack at Moore and his film. Emerson made me realize that I agreed more with Morris's film because I am a republican, and because Moore's film offended me in a way. I think that was Emerson's goal of his writing: to try to make people aware that just like the films itself, the American people have their own sort of political party biasness, which blinds them from trying to see the truth from the other party's side.
I enjoyed Emerson’s article discussing his views towards “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “FahrenHYPE 9/11.” Emerson’s article compares the two documentaries and points out the flaws that both directors make. Moore’s documentary attacks George W. Bush and his campaign as president. Morris’ documentary is a rebuttal to the claims and statements in Moore’s film. Emerson suggests that if Moore would have asked more serious questions and not attack Bush the whole time, his film could have been viable. Morris’ film starts with facts that prove a lot of Moore’s statements wrong, but it soon turns to attack Moore throughout the rest of the film. Emerson believes Morris’ attacks took away from the facts that Morris was holding against Moore. Both films are filled with their own propaganda. When I watched Moore’s film, it made me question a lot of things about G.W. Bush’s campaign as president. However, you soon realize that his arguments are very one sided and appealed to the emotions of the public. His jokes towards Bush made me laugh and made me question, how he truly won the presidential election. However, that is how most Americans felt towards Bush at least once in his campaign. I enjoyed Morris’ film, because it gave actual facts that disproved and made good points against Moore’s arguments. But, it also slowly loses its appeal when Morris sets his sights on attacking Moore in his film. I enjoyed watching both films and seeing two different sides of the spectrum. These films prove that we need to cross reference with other sources and not just believing the first thing you see.
Emerson writes an article called Moore vs Morris, where he compares both films, Fahrenheit 9/11 & FarhrenHYPE 9/11. Emerson doesn't choose one film over the other.
In my opinion, Moores movie kept me more involved in the film because of his way in making it. It was over the top, his ego was showing throughout the whole movie. It just baffled me at the things he was saying and his "facts" throughout the movie that I just had to keep watching till the end. With FahrenHYPE, it was kind of blah. It was film based solely on proving that Moore is a liar.
I feel as if both films did some of what the same thing. It was film to point out and pick apart something that had happened. Each film takes a side and that doesn't mean one is right or wrong.
As the Emerson article highlights, both “Fahrenheit” and “Farenhype” are the victims of similar faults in their storytelling. They both present one-sided arguments that rely primarily on claims with nothing substantial presented to back them up or at times blatantly misleading sequences. The difference is Fahrenheit happens to also be a significantly more engaging film than its direct to video counterpart.
Perhaps Fahrenhype’s greatest ethical flaw is that it presents itself as the truth, rather than the rather hastily produced partisan response that it is. Like the advertising tagline reads, “You knew it was a lie... Now you know why.” This a film that puts slamming Moore and debunking all of Fahrenheit’s claims above actually unraveling what really happened. This is unfortunate, because without the petty rhetoric there really is an important story to be told about the truth behind Moore’s film.
After watching "Fahrenhype 9/11", which was the response to "Fahrenheight 9/11", it was obvious that there are two completely different sides to the story. But what really stood out was the way each was filmed. Fahrenheight, which was directed by Michael Moore, was much more intriguing and much more interesting because of the way it was filmed. Fahrenhype was much more detailed in the way that they responded to the Moore's film and because of that became very dull. But I believe that is what Moore was going for, to get our attention even if what he said was said to be his own opinion.
I have to say that I agree with Emerson’s article. It is hard to say what was truthful and who the so-called “winner” of these two films was. And I agree with Emerson in that the way the films were made is what really got to the audience. There is a reason why Morris’ film was not as “hyped” as Moore’s, and that’s because of the way it was filmed. Although most of the people that watched this film have never had any experience in government or politics, I believe everyone has an opinion and we can all pick which film grabbed our throats the most. But overall I believe this is good, Americans need to be more involved in our country.
I think Emerson writes a great article comaparing both Moore's and Morris's efforts. He does not champion either one, but instead suggests reasons why both failed to present a fair argument. Emerson mentions the tone at which Moore made his claims. Emerson suggests that if Moore would have asked more serious and direct questions, his argument would have been better supported. "Fahrenhype 9/11" features a more rhetorically given arugments, but they are more centered on ripping Moore's name and his claims, instead of directly stating facts on what happened. Niether Moore nor Morris left room for the viewer to come up with their own conclusions, they provided it for them.
ReplyDelete"Fahrenheit 9/11" is definitely known for its propragandist style. "Fahrenhype 9/11" is exactly the same way, it just offers propraganda at a different style and pace. Both of these docs present you with inforamtion and testimonials which appeal to your reason and emotions. They both involve reputation bashing and name calling. It is a battle in which no one truly won. Emerson does note that both films may have had some valid points. However, they are both lacking what they claim to have, the truth.
Emerson writes an article that compares both Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and Morris' "FahrenHYPE 9/11". He doesn't side with one particular film, rather he agrees with aspects of both films, for example right from the beginning he says, "I find it difficult to forgive George W. Bush a lot of things -- mostly having to do with not telling the truth about important public matters, and then pretending it was no big deal that he had mislead...".
ReplyDeleteHe goes on to say that just because one documentary (or "prop-umentary") is "wrong", does not make the other documentary "right".
Another thing I really like about this article is, how Emerson points out about Morris's "FahrenHYPE 9/11" while it talks about the "facts" Michael Moore's film did not have, the only thing that Morris's film did was put an emphasis on "on rhetorically smearing Moore, as indicated by the direct quotations above, than in rebutting the questions raised (and/or aspersions cast) in "Fahrenheit 9/11."
I feel like both of these are propaganda documentaries as much as they come, the real difference between these two are the sides they take, a left vs right wing side.
I enjoyed Emerson's article about Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and Morris' "Fahrenhype 9/11". He stated that Moore's film was in poor taste mainly because of how he presented his information and the simple fact that his arguments were not backed up completely. Moore's arguments were mainly his own opinion on the matter. Morris' film demonstrated disgust for Moore's film and questioned him as a filmmaker. Both films were made so that the viewer could see that particular point of view instead of being unbiased and neutral, which is how I think a documentary should be.
ReplyDeleteBoth films are continunously are bad-mouthing another person so it doesn't really make one wrong or right, it just makes them different. Moore makes a mockery out of Bush and Morris described how horrible and wrong Moore was to do so. I feel like this doesn't make Morris a better person, but brings him down to Moore's level. "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "Fahrenhype 9/11" both have valid points for what would be a propaganda documentary. Although they need more facts and less opinions.
“FahrenHYPE 9/11” puts a lot of focus on how Michael Moore’s film “Fahrenheit 9/11” is factually wrong rather than providing other perspectives on the main subject in Moore’s film. The article discusses how “FahrenHYPE 9/11” film is merely “smearing” Moore’s film by interviewing subjects previously interviewed (in Moore’s film) and collecting their unaltered opinions instead of presenting these opinions out of context. The author of the article, Jim Emerson, explains how both of the films “fail” in a sense by displaying false information (Fahrenheit 9/11) then feeding off of that false information (FahrenHYPE 9/11) instead of revealing the actual truth.
ReplyDeleteBoth of the films have an almost identical format when it comes to the name-calling, propaganda style, and overall layout of their arguments. Neither of the films leave room for the viewer’s opinion; rather they just relentlessly slap the viewer with the “right” opinion, which would be their opinion. With this being said, both of the films are somewhat entertaining to watch, but completely fail to let the viewer decide what’s right and what’s wrong.
I am really happy that we watched FahrenHYPE 9/11. But, I do think that it is extremely important to watch Michael Moore's documentary before this one. I think that, obviously, because FahrenHYPE 9/11 is a direct response to Fahrenheit 9/11. I thought that the way this documentary was filmed was a million times more ethical and factual than Michael Moore's film. Fahrenhype really just made me realize exactly how much crap Moore was full of. In Fahrenhype the statements that are made are backed up by facts, something Moore did not do. I especially liked who was interviewed in this film. I like how the story was told more by the interviewees and not by the narrator. This film was not trying to shove an opinion down your throat, it was just giving facts. Although this documentary did not hold my attention quite like Michael Moore's documentary did, I still think that it was very well put together.
ReplyDeleteIn the reading, the author says that he does not agree with how some of the interviewees were bullying Moore by "name calling." I really disagree with this. The way that Moore treated Bush, I think that Moore deserved to be called whatever names the interviewees gave him. But I did like the reading, because the person had a different view on most things than I did.
Mia Wren
“FahrenHYPE 9/11” by Jim Emerson provides a neutral, unbiased look at the center of both films. I think Emerson does a great job in showing the similarities of all the biasness in the films. Whether it was Fahrenheit 9/11, or Fahrenhype 9/11, both have their own style of trickery in the films. Moore basically attacks the republicans and George W. Bush in his own "comical," way which offends many people. Moore's movie comes off a propaganda rather than a documentary. On the other hand, Morris's film comes off as a more "truthful" attack at Moore and his film. Emerson made me realize that I agreed more with Morris's film because I am a republican, and because Moore's film offended me in a way. I think that was Emerson's goal of his writing: to try to make people aware that just like the films itself, the American people have their own sort of political party biasness, which blinds them from trying to see the truth from the other party's side.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Emerson’s article discussing his views towards “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “FahrenHYPE 9/11.” Emerson’s article compares the two documentaries and points out the flaws that both directors make. Moore’s documentary attacks George W. Bush and his campaign as president. Morris’ documentary is a rebuttal to the claims and statements in Moore’s film. Emerson suggests that if Moore would have asked more serious questions and not attack Bush the whole time, his film could have been viable. Morris’ film starts with facts that prove a lot of Moore’s statements wrong, but it soon turns to attack Moore throughout the rest of the film. Emerson believes Morris’ attacks took away from the facts that Morris was holding against Moore.
ReplyDeleteBoth films are filled with their own propaganda. When I watched Moore’s film, it made me question a lot of things about G.W. Bush’s campaign as president. However, you soon realize that his arguments are very one sided and appealed to the emotions of the public. His jokes towards Bush made me laugh and made me question, how he truly won the presidential election. However, that is how most Americans felt towards Bush at least once in his campaign. I enjoyed Morris’ film, because it gave actual facts that disproved and made good points against Moore’s arguments. But, it also slowly loses its appeal when Morris sets his sights on attacking Moore in his film. I enjoyed watching both films and seeing two different sides of the spectrum. These films prove that we need to cross reference with other sources and not just believing the first thing you see.
Emerson writes an article called Moore vs Morris, where he compares both films, Fahrenheit 9/11 & FarhrenHYPE 9/11. Emerson doesn't choose one film over the other.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Moores movie kept me more involved in the film because of his way in making it. It was over the top, his ego was showing throughout the whole movie. It just baffled me at the things he was saying and his "facts" throughout the movie that I just had to keep watching till the end. With FahrenHYPE, it was kind of blah. It was film based solely on proving that Moore is a liar.
I feel as if both films did some of what the same thing. It was film to point out and pick apart something that had happened. Each film takes a side and that doesn't mean one is right or wrong.
As the Emerson article highlights, both “Fahrenheit” and “Farenhype” are the victims of similar faults in their storytelling. They both present one-sided arguments that rely primarily on claims with nothing substantial presented to back them up or at times blatantly misleading sequences. The difference is Fahrenheit happens to also be a significantly more engaging film than its direct to video counterpart.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Fahrenhype’s greatest ethical flaw is that it presents itself as the truth, rather than the rather hastily produced partisan response that it is. Like the advertising tagline reads, “You knew it was a lie... Now you know why.” This a film that puts slamming Moore and debunking all of Fahrenheit’s claims above actually unraveling what really happened. This is unfortunate, because without the petty rhetoric there really is an important story to be told about the truth behind Moore’s film.
After watching "Fahrenhype 9/11", which was the response to "Fahrenheight 9/11", it was obvious that there are two completely different sides to the story. But what really stood out was the way each was filmed. Fahrenheight, which was directed by Michael Moore, was much more intriguing and much more interesting because of the way it was filmed. Fahrenhype was much more detailed in the way that they responded to the Moore's film and because of that became very dull. But I believe that is what Moore was going for, to get our attention even if what he said was said to be his own opinion.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I agree with Emerson’s article. It is hard to say what was truthful and who the so-called “winner” of these two films was. And I agree with Emerson in that the way the films were made is what really got to the audience. There is a reason why Morris’ film was not as “hyped” as Moore’s, and that’s because of the way it was filmed. Although most of the people that watched this film have never had any experience in government or politics, I believe everyone has an opinion and we can all pick which film grabbed our throats the most. But overall I believe this is good, Americans need to be more involved in our country.
Duncan Spear