Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: 2016 - Obama's America (2012)

This is topic 2016 - Obama's America (2012) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001890

Posted by Tony Gallimore (Member # 5358) on 08-26-2012, 11:22 AM:

Because of it's potential political downside, I won't comment here as to the pros and cons of "2016" except to say Dinesh D'Souza well researched his subject and developed a thought provoking and revealing documentary. Well worth the $7 admission.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-26-2012, 10:15 PM:

Agreed. Great movie. Very informative, and frankly, a little scary.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-26-2012, 11:27 PM:

Did it have scary music? I love it when documentaries do that. It's one of many clues that they're trying to manipulate you into whatever the moral of the show is.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 08-27-2012, 02:23 PM:

I've popped my head in to several of my screenings, and it had everything I would expect from the new Michael Moore playbook for a dramatic non-narrative movie, except for one thing: the humor born out of people saying and doing stupid things.

Yes, Joe, 2016 does that the manipulative dramatic music. It also has unsubstantiated interviews with several people to claim to have known Barack Obama Sr. and claim to know exactly what Obama Jr. is trying to do, even though they haven't had any contact with Jr. in decades, if they ever even did. (Of course, Obama Sr. has been conveniently dead for thirty years, so he can't speak for himself or defend his own positions.)

But the main question the film does not answer, from what I can tell, is why Obama would wait for a second term, one that was never guaranteed for him, to do all these horrible things the filmmakers claim he'll do if he gets re-elected? Why wouldn't Obama go for broke in his first two years in office, when he had a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate, and was able to replace two Republican-nominated Supreme Court justices with his own picks?

The film pretty much brings up the same old crap, from Ayers and Wright to, yes, the birther controversy, without really making any new points. It brings up zero positive points about Obama's presidency, and there have been many, and is very much designed to fan the flames of hate.

The movie will change nobody's mind about the man.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-27-2012, 02:56 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
It brings up zero positive points about Obama's presidency

I haven't seen this film (don't know if I will) but how is this any different than Farenheit 911? It is advertised very obviously as an anti-Obama film just like Farenheit 911 was anti-Bush. In the pieces I saw of the latter, I don't remember it extolling the virtues of the economic recovery that followed the crash from 9/11.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-28-2012, 02:01 AM:

I haven't seen it yet, probably won't see it but it seems to be doing well where it is playing in the area I live in. I however can't say what areas those would be because this thread as already hit its political thresh hold and will be closed if anyone else starts talking about politics.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 08-28-2012, 08:42 AM:

sounds like a Romney approved feature length infomercial

no thanks.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 08-28-2012, 12:40 PM:

On the business side, I am glad my theater booked this movie as it kept us from being dead. The business from Premium Rush, Hit and Run and the second week of Expendables 2 was quite lacking.
Of course, depending on your location, your mileage will vary.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-29-2012, 04:03 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
But the main question the film does not answer, from what I can tell, is why Obama would wait for a second term, one that was never guaranteed for him, to do all these horrible things the filmmakers claim he'll do if he gets re-elected?

Well, first that's common for every president. But this may help.
Video

quote: Edward Havens
The film pretty much brings up the same old crap, from Ayers and Wright to, yes, the birther controversy, without really making any new points.

It doesn't bring up the birther controversy that I remember. It actually says he was born in Hawaii and moves on. Since it's a story about Mr. Obama and since Ayers and Wright are part of his past, of course they're mentioned. But it doesn't dwell on them either.

quote: Edward Havens
It brings up zero positive points about Obama's presidency, and there have been many, and is very much designed to fan the flames of hate.

I don't see it fanning flames of hate at all. It's meant to help you understand why he does things that he does that sometimes may not make sense. The Churchill bust is a great example. Winston Churchill means something to Americans. But to Mr. Obama, he means something totally different. After seeing the movie, you should understand why. I thought it was kind of a sad story actually.

quote: Edward Havens
The movie will change nobody's mind about the man.

That's not true either. I know someone who had their mind changed.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-29-2012, 11:59 PM:

It could have some bias overtones showing really what the director thinks and using Obama as a target.

It's not bad, some scary thoughts, but I'll leave it at that since it all about personal opinion, but outside of the content, it has been one of our better movies in our complex to gain an audience - which have been the senior citizen age group (which definitely kills the conc per cap since they don't want to eat much).

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 08-30-2012, 09:23 AM:

Sorry, Mark, you should do some fact checking there...

From the New York Daily News, which did:

"D’Souza says Obama removed a bust of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill from the Oval Office because Churchill represented British colonialism. White House curator William Allman said the bust, which had been on loan, was already scheduled to be returned before Obama took office. Another bust of Churchill is on display in the president’s private residence, the White House says."

There's more items in the piece that show D'Souza's clear bias. The link above goes to the second page of the article, with some of D'Souza's more blatant attempts at distortion. Read it, if you dare.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 08-30-2012, 10:27 AM:

Ok, I read it. I'm not afraid of listening to both sides. Unfortunately we can't discuss the points it tries to make here.

I'm aware of the two busts and the confusion that came about because of it when one was sent back. I'm also aware that Churchill was a pretty prominent figure in Great Britain when Mr. Obama's Kenyan grandfather was imprisoned and tortured by Great Britain for information as part of the Kenyan uprising against Great Britain.

To me that makes it easy to see why Mr. Obama would hold a different point of view with regard to Churchill than most Americans do. There's no hate (or politics) in that.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 08-30-2012, 01:33 PM:

Here is what nullifies many of D Souza's insinuations. The dude is fixated on a freaking Churchill statue. Can Dinesh explain what in Obama's past led him to hire a Wall Street crony like Geithner? D Souza focuses on so called weaknesses which I actually thought were Obama's achievements - not wasting more money and lives in countries like Libya, Syria, or even Iran. Yet, not much analysis on how an anti colonialist socialist like Obama signing on fully to the Bush-Paulson bailout by continuing it with the Obama-Geithner bailout. I will give him a minor point for not pandering to the birther crap.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 08-31-2012, 12:40 AM:

The Churchill bust is a smokescreen, intended to distract from real issues. A smokescreen that, sadly, is working, no matter how many times it's proven false.

And if the Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com says "Obama's policies may have expanded government, but they don't justify this ridiculous hyperbole" when Rick Perry kept calling Obama a socialist, I'd hope that would have killed that BS too.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-31-2012, 05:37 AM:

quote: Edward Havens
And if the Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com says

All I will say is that "Pulitzer Prize-winning" and "non-partisan" do not mean unbiased.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up the bias of this movie. Of course it is biased. It is meant to be an anti-Obama documentary. It doesn't pretend to be neutral in advertising.

This review thread should focus on if the film is worth seeing or thought provoking not for debating things from the film and trying to stay just below the line of the rule against politcal discussion on the forum.

If I decide to see something like this, I would take in the biased points it brings up, do my own research and come to my own conclusions. If this film will motivate me to do that then I'd give it a good review.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 08-31-2012, 05:43 AM:

You guys lost me at "Michael Moore".

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-31-2012, 08:46 AM:

Let's forget about Obama for a moment, and consider the situation. A film about a president is released just a few months before that president is standing for re-election. We don't know what the result of that election will be, but the result is likely to be quite close; persuading a quite small number of votors in certain states could be enough to swing the Electoral College one way or the other. It doesn't matter who the president is, what party they are from, or whether the film is pro or anti his policies, I would want to check everything the film said. Maybe the film is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or maybe it isn't; I can't tell, I haven't seen it but under the circumstances until I could check several sources, and sources which held different points of view, I'd reserve judgement on it. It's the same with news media, read reports from several different sources, check what they say, and at least as important, watch out for what they don't say.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 08-31-2012, 11:35 AM:

See, Stephen, that's the problem. The filmmakers know its target audience will not checks the points of view presented in the film to see how truthful they are. And that's what pisses me off about this film and its intended audience.

I don't accept what Michael Moore says in his movies at face value, when I even go to see them. If there are points he makes that don't sound right, I seek out information to see how truthful it is.

The truth should be paramount to decides to be a citizen and exercise their right to vote. If you hate Obama, fine, but hate him because of truthful reasons. Anyone who thinks he has done a horrible job running the country the past four years, I'm wondering what you honestly think McCain and Palin would have done better. What do you think Romney and Ryan will do better, especially considering even Fox News called Ryan's speech at the RNC "deceiving" and "distracting," and took the time to disprove several key points of his speech. Fox News calling out the GOP VP candidate... [Eek!]

And yes, the truth is unbiased. The truth does not come with points of view. We call ideas with biased points of view "opinions," and opinions, like the ones espoused during Obama's America, concerning our sitting President and what they believe his thoughts may be, must absolutely be fact-checked, and if they are distortions or outright lies, they must be exposed.

I apologize if you feel I have hijacked the thread, although to be honest, the one-sentence post that started this thread is not much of a review. Consider my posts a hybrid review for the new social media. 2016 is nothing more than a ninety minute argumentum ad hominem and deserves stronger scrutiny than a movie like The Oogieloves.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-31-2012, 12:22 PM:

^^^

I think it's a little strange to say "Fox News says the speech was deceiving..." when it is clearly a piece written by about the only person at Fox News that shares the author's political views. She's their token liberal...

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-31-2012, 02:40 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
The truth should be paramount to decides to be a citizen and exercise their right to vote. If you hate Obama, fine, but hate him because of truthful reasons. Anyone who thinks he has done a horrible job running the country the past four years, I'm wondering what you honestly think McCain and Palin would have done better. What do you think Romney and Ryan will do better

I would love to answer some of this but I don't want to violate forum rules. You see the problem as I read your responses is that you don't seem to understand that all politics is opinion which is why political discussion is not allowed here. There are very few things in politics that are absolute facts.

quote: Edward Havens
I don't accept what Michael Moore says in his movies at face value, when I even go to see them. If there are points he makes that don't sound right, I seek out information to see how truthful it is.

Then why do you have such an issue with this movie? It's the same thing but from the other side of the aisle. Michael Moore takes a few facts and combines them with out of context quotes and "gotcha" ambush interviews in order to present his political view. The only reason any of Michael Moore's points "sound right" to you is because they fit your political views and opinions.

Let me guarantee you that if Obama loses this election it will have NOTHING to do with this movie that is being seen by people that wouldn't have voted for him anyway. No independent swing voter is going to pay to watch a political advertisement. Same thing that happened with Farenheit 911 except more people went to it because there were more people with a deep seeded hate of GWB. It didn't help Kerry just like this won't help Romney.

Posted by Edward Havens (Member # 4715) on 08-31-2012, 02:41 PM:

So the facts she backs up with supporting evidence are immaterial because she's not a conservative? I guess that means everything Juan Williams said or did during his stint at NPR could be equally invalidated because he was just their token conservative?

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-31-2012, 03:13 PM:

quote: Edward Havens
So the facts she backs up with supporting evidence are immaterial because she's not a conservative?

Never said anything remotely like that.

You said: *Fox News* called the speech deceitful
I said: Not really. The one person who doesn't represent the views of nearly everyone at the organization called it that.

That's not saying her stuff was immaterial. Like if a guy got hired at the White House, he supported free market capitalism, and wrote up an article on it, it wouldn't make sense to say "The Administration supports free market capitalism" even if the guy were on their staff.

[edit] But I think I should stick out of this. It's getting close to being a rule-breaker.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 08-31-2012, 11:33 PM:

Let's get back to the movie. So I watch Dark Knight in real IMAX. After that, I was walking back towards the exit doors, and I couldn't resist just checking out a part of this movie. It was nearly 30 min past start time(though trailers were probably half of that) So I walk in and see in the audience the opposite of what one sees in a TYler Perry movie and the demographic was pretty old.

I walked in during the scene where DSouza narrates the timeline of Obama's dad's birth. So I probably missed only 15 min or so. I wasn't sure how much of the doc I would watch. Plan was to watch only 15 min and leave. But I sat longer because I was shocked at how even handed the first 45 min were. I was saying to myself "is this the real D Souza?" No birther crap in the remotest. I did not agree with everything D Souza was concluding , but at least he presents the facts as they were and we have the right to disagree. I am thinking to myself "man I must have prejudged this doc too harshly". I even didn't mind the Michael Moore type interview of Obama's half brother. Liberal docs do that too and that is fair game. Obama's dad comes across very negatively and I see nothing wrong with the doc pointing that out. Obama's mom comes across as a one note activist type. I am not sure how true it is, but I wouldn't be surprised if this were true. So so far , I am fine with the doc.

But then the last half hour struck and what was a documentary became a shameless propaganda piece.It wasn't even FOX NEWS entertaining. He interviews the likes of Daniel Pipes - one of the neocons who got us into a messy Iraq war which contributed mightily to the deficit DSouza harps on(the checks for that war are still being cashed). He has a montage of Obama's founding fathers set to sinister music and ties that into the belief that Obama is not only influenced by it, but somehow he follows the same ideology. He takes diplomatic foreign speak Obama pandering to the islamic countries (which Bush and other Presidents have done in the past too. Hell, Reagan famously called islamic dictator Zia his buddy" . He doesn't try to explain how Obama hired Geithner despite having a communist as one of his mentors. Hiring Geithner angered not only the Ron paul types, it angered Obama's supporters too. So right there, everything D Souza talks about goes to waste.

D Souza's theory of islamic pandering and Obama being apologetic for some of America's past rings hollow when he tries to tie that into Obama's foreign policy governance because it was Obama who took the islamic terroristic shenanigans of Pakistan's ISI to greater task than Bush did. It is Obama who did not bother to view islamic Pakistan as someone he was willing to respect and entrust with knowledge of the Osama raid. The whole doc tries to arrive at the conclusion that Obama would kowtow more to islamic countries because of past connections. Yet, the disrespect Obama showed Pakistan and Karzai in Afghanistan prove otherwise. One could make montages of Bush praising Pakistan of being our ally when in reality Pakistan was guiltier than Iran of spreading Islamic terrorism in the region. So should D Souza try to understand Bush's father issues(I know Moore tried that, but I felt that was stretching it back then to).

Grade B for the first hour . Grade F for the next 25 min.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 08-31-2012, 11:51 PM:

My take on this film is simply this: a film that going to result in a personal take of what they saw - be it true and factual, or just a personal take and want to make some money on this, simply since we weren't there when this all happened in the past of the person in question.

Thing really has a lot of gray matter within it, yet funny that this is the first time that a presidental candidate has been the topic of a movie just to make a point.
Yet, what's the whole point - a personal or professional point? The answer belongs to the sole individual who witnessed this film and it really can't be discussed.

Thus, with like politics and religion, it's a personal matter.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 09-01-2012, 12:01 AM:

quote: Lyle Romer
I don't understand why you keep bringing up the bias of this movie. Of course it is biased. It is meant to be an anti-Obama documentary. It doesn't pretend to be neutral in advertising.

Agreed completely. The whole point of making documentaries for the theatre is that you're not going for the John Grierson/Ken Burns/PBS/BBC 'we must treat both sides equally and weigh up the arguments' approach - it's a format in which the gloves are off, you're allowed to rant at your audience, and when your audience pays their $7 (or whatever), they know what they can expect.

While remaining absolutely neutral on the content of these movies on this board, one thing that strikes me is that the political left have been doing this, and very well (in terms of entertainment value, at any rate) for many years now: Michael Moore being the obvious example, but other movies have followed in his wake, e.g. An Inconvenient Truth, Outfoxed, Inside Job etc. The right have been slower to take to the medium, but now seem to be playing catch-up with the occasional theatrical feature documentary such as Taking Liberties a few years ago, and now this one.

However much you do or don't buy the arguments put forward in these movies, the fact that the feature documentary in general seems to be thriving is good news, IMHO.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 09-01-2012, 08:33 AM:

Guggenheim of Inconvenient Truth and Waiting For Superman is overrated as hell. I believe the only reason he got the oscar was because liberals in Hollywood wanted to reward Al Gore. And I say this as someone who is not one of those global warming deniers. Also, i felt The Lottery did a better job than Waiting For Superman in making the case for alternatives to public schools. You want a real good progressive doc -- Check out FLOCK OF DODOS . The guy who made it takes academics to task for not communicating evolution properly to the masses even though he supports evolution. He makes the ID proponents looks bad without resorting to cheap shots.

I have no problem with D Souza or Michael Moore using bias. I had no problem with Moore using a cheapshot showing Bush getting confused while speaking or D Souza using the same tactic to show Obama stumbling during an Obamacare speech. BOth are fair game cheapshot strategies. What I object to are falsehoods like the Churchill being returned reason or the other stuff we pointed out. The final half hour of this movie are just too biased to call it a documentary especially someone like D Souza who takes himself too seriously all the time.

Posted by Joe Tommassello (Member # 4632) on 09-05-2012, 03:06 PM:

The film is informative. There wasn't anything in it I didn't already know but I am a political news junkie. I imagine if you only get your news from MSNBC you might actually be surprised by some of the information in this film and might find it hard to believe. DeSouza's "facts", however, appear to be well supported by known history and in many cases the President's own words. The conclusions he draws are his own and you may or may not agree but I could see it stopping the thrill running up someone or another's leg. As the advertising suggests we really know practically nothing about the man we elected as President. This film does indeed shed some light on his past. It is certainly not a Michael Moore-style hit piece.

Posted by Jeff Taylor (Member # 443) on 09-05-2012, 04:01 PM:

The multiplex I saw it in had it playing in the largest house, which must say something. I thought it was pretty studious and well reasoned, but then I also am a political news junkie.

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-08-2012, 12:41 AM:

Customer asking about different movies we are playing: "Have you seen that 2016 movie?"
My boss: "I've only seen a few parts."
Customer: "Its a documentary right? So it must be true. Didn't the guy who wrote it also write Schindler's List?"

One of the producer was a producer for Schindler's List, not that that has anything to do with anything.

And in that conversation-which I assure you is an actual quote and not a paraphrase-lies the problem with 'documentaries' like 'Fahrenheit 9/11' and '2016: Obama's America.' People are just too god-damned gullible and easily manipulated.

This country would be much better off if more people were capable of critical thinking.

Posted by Brent Francis (Member # 5008) on 09-08-2012, 09:57 AM:

Try the whole world.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-01-2012, 12:11 AM:

I watched this yesterday and to me the last part deals more than anything with our mounting national debt, and Obama's supposedly wanting to shrink our nuclear arsenal while other countries are supposedly not shrinking theirs.

I know we shouldn't go into it here but that's the part I want to check out. The debt part is true, obviously, but I admit ignorance on the nuclear-arsenal part.

The bit about "100% taxation" is clearly just a dumb scare tactic. No president could ever get away with something like that...the whole population would just pack up and move to Canada or somewhere.

Bottom line, I feel about this movie the way I feel about almost all political things: It's never as bad as they say it's going to be, and it's never as good as they say it's going to be either.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 10-01-2012, 08:59 PM:

quote: Dustin Mitchell
Customer: "Its a documentary right? So it must be true. ..."

That is really scary.

Mike's final paragraph (above) says it all.