Three Years of Hell to Become the Devil: Hitchens on Moore on 9/11

« The Honorable Judge Calabresi | Main | Critiquing Cass Sunstein »

Hitchens on Moore on 9/11

From Hitchen's Slate piece on 9/11:

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point. And as for [Moore's threatened] scary lawyers�get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let's redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let's see what you're made of.

Buy me tickets to that show. I'm not always much for Hitchens, but blowhard from Flint would be just out-and-out outclassed. If you're looking for dinner-time conversation fodder to use against the most rabid of Bush-haters, read the Hitchens article. Otherwise, 9/11 looks to be something that serious people can ignore.

Posted by Anthony on June 23, 2004 12:23 PM | Permalink

Comments

Hitchens is out of his gourd in his 'review'. I'm no Moore fan, but Hitchens's reaction is so vitriolic as to warrant more serious consideration of Moore than is necessary. Further, for all his new-found patriotic idealism, his most urgent battle seems to be for the legitimacy of his now-irrelevant (though increasingly suspect) original position on Iraq. The fact is, it matters little whether we were right or wrong to go in -- we're there now & need to see it out. As for his strident attempt at self-defense, it's as much an ego trip as Moore's film.

Posted by: Spencer | June 23, 2004 2:23 PM

Hey, look, I'm not a huge Hitchens fan, but I really don't like Moore. Nonetheless, Hitchens is much better at thinking on his feet: I'd buy popcorn for that match.

Posted by: A. Rickey | June 23, 2004 8:46 PM

The muppet who wrote that article is Hitchens right? It's a vitriolic piece of shit with no serious criticism or point to make. If thats an intellectual heavyweight he's clearly out of shape. There's a series of straw man attacks and a bunch of misinterpretations / deliberate changes of emphasis but nothing that I'd say approaches serious criticism. Incidently did you notice the 'Michael Moore's a Nazi' meme that was snuck in there HATE SPEECH HATE SPEECH HATE SPEECH , sorry, came over all republican there. And lets be clear here, Moore is not working as some dispassionate objective journalist. Moore is a polemicist, and he doesn't hide it. To say he's making political points is no more radical than to say Bush or Kerry do the same when they make speeches. Go see the damn film people. Take an open mind.

Posted by: Martin | June 24, 2004 3:49 AM

Better (critical) criticism From Salon (click through the ads) http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2004/06/23/911_nay/index.html And other films http://www.gunnerpalace.com http://www.controlroommovie.com/

Posted by: Martin | June 24, 2004 4:35 AM

Tony, It's not like you to judge something before you see it. Aren't you the one who sat through Last Samuri so you could be critical without being hypocritical?

Posted by: Fellow Owl | June 24, 2004 7:37 AM

Bush told he is playing into Bin Laden's hands. Al-Qaida may 'reward' American president with strike aimed at keeping him in office, senior intelligence man says . Imperial Hubris is the latest in a relentless stream of books attacking the administration in election year. Most of the earlier ones, however, were written by embittered former officials. This one is unprecedented in being the work of a serving official with nearly 20 years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence establishment. http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1242638,00.html

Posted by: Roland | June 24, 2004 7:40 AM

Fellow Owl: I sat through Roger & Me. That was enough to convince me that Moore is neither a serious commentator nor a respectable journalist. He's in the same realm as P. J. O'Rourke--a reasonable entertainer--with the exception of the fact that O'Rourke realizes that an entertainer is what he is. Moore doesn't realize that. To avoid hypocrisy does not require the true physical pain required to sit through Michael Moore.

Posted by: A. Rickey | June 24, 2004 12:04 PM

just so we're all clear, the end of the article says: "Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair."

Posted by: monica | June 24, 2004 1:36 PM

hitchens is a pompous moron, and a jackass. you people are silly. i review his sci fi thriller of f911. www.yeekyakairforce.com/ollie

Posted by: ollie | June 29, 2004 5:18 PM

hitchens is a pompous moron, and a jackass. you people are silly. i review his sci fi thriller of f911. www.yeekyakairforce.com/ollie

Posted by: ollie | June 29, 2004 5:19 PM

Hitchens gives himself up when he mentions writing and producing his own documentaries - none of which, as I recall, got the Palmme D'Or. He's a brandy-breathed gasbag, claims Moore supports the Taliban by way of impugning Bush as a clod, a liar and a shallow man. I'd expect this from Zell Miller or Helmet Hair Lott, but Hitchens USED to be a thinking man.

Posted by: bigbear | July 14, 2004 4:44 PM

Christopher Hitchens vs. Michael Moore http://www.overcast.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/f911/hitch-moore.htm

Posted by: JLee | March 25, 2005 1:49 PM

Christopher Hitchens vs. Michael Moore http://www.overcast.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/f911/hitch-moore.htm

Posted by: JLee | March 25, 2005 1:50 PM

Giving The Devil His Due

And like that... he is gone (8)
Bateleur wrote: I tip my hat to you - not only for ... [more]

Law Firm Technology (5)
Len Cleavelin wrote: I find it extremely difficult to be... [more]

Post Exam Rant (9)
Tony the Pony wrote: Humbug. Allowing computers already... [more]

Symbols, Shame, and A Number of Reasons that Billy Idol is Wrong (11)
Adam wrote: Well, here's a spin on the theory o... [more]

I've Always Wanted to Say This: What Do You Want? (14)
gcr wrote: a nice cozy victorian in west phill... [more]