Michael Moore Clarifies Accusations About His Fahrenheit 9/11 Follow-Up

May 17, 2008
Source: LA Times, Associated Press

Michael Moore

A few days ago, Michael Moore officially announced his next documentary, a follow-up to Fahrenheit 9/11 from 2004. Everyone referred to it initially as a sequel, and even Moore himself was quoted as saying that it would be a "a searing and provocative follow-up." While that is true, it is not a sequel. Moore recently clarified the accusations made about the documentary with the LA Times, saying instead that it "will offer a withering look at America's global conduct and reputation." The tentative title for the follow-up is While America Slept, but it has nothing to do with sleeping in the slightest. While Moore still won't reveal any exact details, he does share a lot of vague information about the film.

Moore explains that the documentary will "examine America as an empire, study its standing since the Sept. 11 attacks and present revelations to surprise audiences as much as the first film did." While it won't necessarily attack George W. Bush directly as he did previously, Moore does say that "he and his cronies and his supporters literally got away with murder," which somewhat explains the tentative title While America Slept. Moore does make a rather convincing statement regarding our current situation as Americans, saying that "since I made Fahrenheit, our standing in the world had depleted to an even worse state." And that idea is exactly what this follow-up documentary will focus on.

"Regardless of who the president is come November, we have a big mess, a big, big mess to be cleaned up, and I don't know whether it can be cleaned up. The toxicity of the spill may be so great that there's nothing we can do about it. If that's the case, where are we now as America and as Americans?"

Whether you agree with him or not, you can't deny that making statements like that will interest many moviegoers into seeing exactly what it is he'll show. "I think the moviegoing public wants a sense of danger. They want something where they are on the edge of their seats." While I'll agree with that, if what he presents isn't completely factual or something that most of them agree with, then they'll come to despise it. Moore goes on to say via the Associated Press that, "what I'm going to say in this film is what probably 70 percent of [audiences] don't want to hear." He promises that the documentary will be "dangerous," but that he can't give away anything else "because I want to be able to finish."

As I previously stated in the first announcement, I'm actually a fan of Michael Moore and I'm very anxious to see the argument he presents in this follow-up. I think Moore does a great job of building up suspense and teasing audiences with his films, getting them curious enough to find out exactly what he is trying to say, whether they come to believe it in the end or not. Political discussion won't be found here, but filmmaking tactics will be, and Moore is doing it right. His films are as big as they are because people want to know what he has to say.

Find more posts: Discuss, Movie News



Personally, I think Moore's credibility went down for me after I watched Sicko and saw proof that he likes to stretch the truth (short waiting times in Canada? Yeah right) However, I am still intrigued to hear what he has to say in this film.

Sean Kelly on May 17, 2008


Moore definitely oversimplifies and exaggerates just as bad as any politican..but I give the man credit, he can get people to at least try to open their minds...which is a blessing right now..I will watch it.

Kyle A. K. on May 17, 2008


What the hell is an "Accusition"? Do you mean "AccusAtion"?

Alex on May 17, 2008


moores a hack, he takes the facts and twists them to make bush or whoever he wants to look bad, simple as that

harrison on May 17, 2008


Bowling for Columbine made me wanna open a bank account

Kail on May 18, 2008


Harrison, is your last name FORD, perchance? COME CLEAN SOLO.

DCompose on May 18, 2008


"moores a hack, he takes the facts and twists them to make bush or whoever he wants to look bad, simple as that" Funny thing about that is, facts really don't need any twisting in order to make bush look bad. He does it himself. Kinda like how it's pointless to make fun of him nowadays. IT'S IMPLIED.

Nominus on May 18, 2008


i agree it all kind of reminds me of OJ. we dont need the idiot LAPD (micheal moore) to frame guilty ass OJ simpson (george bush) when i think of micheal moore a few things come to mind: foxification, jerry springer, COPS, people discussing world events as a tornado blows their trailer park away, pigging out, correcting peoples spelling when they are trolling, barguments, ... etc

Jont on May 28, 2008


"moores a hack, he takes the facts and twists them to make bush or whoever he wants to look bad, simple as that" To follow up on that guy up there who will never read this: "Scott McClellan('s) a hack, he takes the facts and twists them to make bush or whoever he wants to look bad, simple as that" Wow, doing that made me feel BIG!

Nominus on May 28, 2008

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:

Follow Alex's main account on Twitter:

For only the latest posts - follow this:

Add our posts to your Feedlyclick here

Get all the news sent on Telegram Telegram