More than 280 people packed into the Cinema Arts Theatre on July 8 for a screening and discussion of Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11." Cinema Arts teamed with George Mason University to sponsor the open forum, which aimed to encourage discussion about the politically themed film.
A whirlwind of whispers and comments flew at the conclusion of the movie, but Richard Rubenstein, moderator of the discussion and a professor at GMU, spoke over the din about the upcoming forum.
"There will be no control on this discussion, only that there are no interruptions," he said.
At the front of the theater sat commentators Marcus Raskin, author and professor at George Washington University, and Prof. Lee Edwards, a member of the Heritage Foundation and author of many books on traditional conservative thought.
The discussion was organized in the manner of opening statements and rebuttal. The audience was then allowed to ask questions and comment. Edwards, one of the few conservatives in the room, was given the opportunity to rebut the movie first.
"Media has always influenced American politics, but we can't let the truth get grossly distorted," said Edwards, as he spoke against Moore's documentary.
"Films are important, but reality is much more important," said Raskin. "The case the film undertakes is only something similar to a room overheated and someone opening a window."
COMMENTS AND questions were taken from the crowd, as issues were brought forth. Most of the comments were about President Bush and his administration, rather than the movie itself. Issues brought forth included the Patriot Act and tax cuts.
"Much more could have been said in the minds of the administration to explain more of what Bush's intentions were," said Raskin.
A heated discussion erupted about the "seven minutes" footage in the movie, in which Bush was shown seated in an elementary-school classroom, listening to a story being read to the children, for several minutes after being informed of the World Trade Center towers being hit for the second time on Sept. 11, 2001.
One audience member called the seven minutes "an outrage," while Richard Rubenstein defended Bush's reaction in that length of time as "Moore going over the top with the seven minutes. It was not a fair interpretation of pure shock."
More conservative outlooks spoke against the dramatization of the media and journalism, including the documentary's hype.
"Diversity of the media, like C-SPAN, saves us from the dramatization of journalism today," said Edwards.
Raskin said he was in support of the movie's goals but did, however, feel that there were inconsistencies.
"What bothered me about this film was that there was a racist undertone of the relationship to the Arabs to Americans. The assumption that everything was peaches and cream before the invasion is false. [The film] didn't say anything about Saddam Hussein or the opinions of the Europeans," he said.
Edwards agreed. "What disappointed me was the pretty picture portrayed of Iraq under Saddam Hussein," he said.
Raskin suggested that the government needed to be obligated to inform the public in controlled settings. "My suggestion is that there has to be plans, programs to press the government on what is happening," he said.
"We should not depend on the people at the top. Intelligence should be in the hands of the few, but if it is a constitutional country, information needs to be handed to the public in a controlled setting."
Edwards said that the answer to this movie was in the theory of questioning the president.
"Get the people to ask George Bush as to why the war and what weapons of mass destruction?" said Edwards.
As the audience filed out of the theater after the discussion, many young adults and teenagers stayed behind. None spoke during the screening, but the handful that stayed at the commentator table afterward, primarily questioned Edwards further.
"I think young people will be more biased to the liberal ideas of this movie," said Matthew Mullen, a younger viewer of the screening.