 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
That will not please Mr. Bush....
Follow Ups:
He wasn't elected properlyhe lies through his teeth.
John Deane's got him to rights, "worse than watergate".
Michael Moore is one of the few signs of health in America.
Timbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
Peace
Saw your response down below... did you write it all just from memory? If so you get my nod - I couldn't do it without a reference by my side.Don't get angry, man, Napoleon, Wellington, Moore and Bush are all just transitionary historic figures, of which of course Bonaparte was the greatest... but listen - how about Napoleon vs Moore comparo?
Could you do it for me like reall quickly?
I agree that Moore is the sign of health in America. Only a healty democracy could let some asshole like that exist. Here we have all kinds... even the terrorists.
I knew this was a dangerous thread... maybe I should stay with Capucine - I think she would make a great babe in Postman Always Rings Twice - what do you think?
he's a very naughty boy.capucine, yeah, she's a knee clutchingly exciting lady.
there are some women that make you feel 'unsteady' inn't there? eh!?
I think that aspect is vital in Postman, you shoulda met my 'seriously mad Jenny'.
- walked like a Duchess,
- green gold lion eyes
- catwalk model figure aka beanstalk
- but, 'legs all the way up to her bum' type legs
- 'Un petite derriere en poire et motile!' (?sic?)
- a real red blonde longg hair, thigh or was that 'sighhh' length
- married one guy, when the guy she did love was around!!?!!!
not telling any more. {;~|}!
Timbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
Peace
Tah, yes I do have a good memory, I am very impressed by Russia's capacity as a nation. Youse old Vikings youse.The DP (2nd only to the Czech based LMG's -> Bren), the SKS and AK, and the PPsh, all with chromed barrels! Now as agrunt I think that's thoughtful. NTF the KV and the T34, and the SU76, etc, etc, the PE2, the Mig 3, and the Yaks. My Dad had a friend who flew with the Normandie Niemen squadron, but mostly in France 1944 onwards.
I have actually read the (translated) Luftwffe order saying that FW190's and Me109's were not to dogfight certain Yakovlevs, with the cooler that stuck out(?) The Yak 3 I think, and all subsequents. I woulda wanted to be in a Spit9 or 14 (Griffon eng.) minimum if engaging a Yak.
Do you know if there is any good English language site on USSR artillery, during WWII. I have looke pretty hard. There was this medium gun, no shield, with obvious vertical twin cylinder balancing gear (one per side of the barrel) just forward of the trunnions, sorta like the British 5.5"!? Was it a 122 gun, or howitzer, or a gun/howitzer like the 152?
NVA's 122mm guns could outrange most our arty in 'Nam. except for the 17mm gun, but you can'r put one of them in every FSB.
OT I would be interestetd to know whether your RIAA stges apply the 50K to point as per Allen Wright's writings? Mine has TDP's Bass alignment a slight boost @~ 25, and > 15 db down by 10 hz. We added the 50K idea later, seems slightly more airy and sweet.
I still use this 'basically RCA' circuit, two 12ax7's eiether side of passive RIAA plus a tranny in front. with agood zero volt ref PSU with its own ground plane, it is acceptably quiet.
Timbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
Peace
The PPsh was great piece, and its round was far better than the 9 milli. Would not bounce off the heavy coat at 300 meters.Mig 3 was not particularly spectacular, and while it was not hard to outclass the 109, the 190 was a complete winner. I would have to refresh my memory, but I think only the radial-engined Lavochkin La 5 and La 7 could deal with it adequetely. I think Yak 9 was high altitude fighter, not too good at lower ones.
The gun you are describing sounds like the 100mm anti-tank field gun, but I am not really an artillery buff... I will look around though.
Is this the one?
http://www.hobbyterra.com/product.asp?idProduct=585
For a military history buff, there are some interesting Russian war films, but hard to find I think.
yes, 7.63mmMauser / 7.62mm russian version are powerful rounds. I ahve fired a captured Chicom Tokarev too.JBTW I did a longish Infantry Centre course "Small arms / coaching / marksmanship", and managed to pass on all counts, even with glasses, but only wore the badge on my sleeve, for a year until I left. (Crowned + crossed LE rifles, over L M R P.) Fired a Dshka, and SG42 (Goryunov?) too, and that 14.5mm thing. MG3(MG42-7.62Nato-Brrrriipp), Browning 0.5 M2HB, M1919/.30, FN/MAG, DPM, RPD, L4(Bren), M60 (! PoS),
The PPsh was, considering the muzzle impulse and cyclic rate, a good bit easier to hold on target, for me, than the similar Thompson - box mag version, let alone the TFO (The Famous Owen!?), which was quite violent IIRC, but *.
We found, that by the 1970's at least, all OoS (;-) Owens, had worn barrels / bolts, and weak return springs *, and did NOT hit hard, even for a 9mmPar. gun.
The F1, based on it WAS good, very stable, and it hit hard. But by then you could have a Colt Commando (short Armalite), which was better all round. Except for cleaning it after use, stupid idiots in USAOO who decided to change to US mil. powder, *&^$%$##@@* !
The 100mm divisional gun - 1943 - was known to me, same gun as in Su100, KV100, JSI and maybe even JSII, and T54/5 - with APDS?. But, it is not the one I'm thinking of.Imagine a gun sitting a good bit higher in the cradle, with a somewhat shorter but still longish barrel, (it is Russian after all!), trunnioned pretty close to the breech * , AND two cylinders almost vertical on either side of the barrel, well up above it and forward (of the shield?. Possibly spring/hydraulic balancers for the muzzle preponderance * of the barrel, NOT part of the recoil system at all. Recoil probably moves gun AND cradle.
German 15cm WWII howitzer, and Brit 5.5 gun, had similar.
USSR had LOTS of these right up until Berlin, I think?
122mm gun/howitzer? maybe?
RIAA? email me?
Timbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
Peace
I remember reading about using these in anti-tank role with devastating results... don't know whether true or not.
Known to Ivan the frontovik as "the animal killer".It IS actually a Gun/Howitzer, Ie sufficient MV in direct fire role, at low angles, to have good penetration. Variable charges, and able to elevate well above Gun angles for indirect fire. [Many howitzer's have this ability so few are pure howitzers, eg. the D30 122mm, with its cruciform carriage is both.]
A purer howitzer like the M1943 usually has lower weight and lower range.
Also that long muzzle brake, on the M1937, is indicative of highish MV, one of the few WW11 mediums to have a MB! The Yank 155mm H didn't, nor the GUN (the long-tom), neither of the British mediums did, some later German ones did, but few of them were made, in most cases.
Mediums do often have enough thump to put a heavy shot or AP shell straight through armour. OTOH Mediums can damage or take out tanks from above with air bursts (splinters downwards at HE speed) if time fused. Or, even a direct hit right on top with HE, as this was a particularly accurate medium gun, it's fire coulda been 'walked in', NB all tanks are tin cans on top.
Fire from a medium battery was always a reliable way to slow or stop massed tanks.
I have bookmarked it.
The NVA 122mm I was referring to is the M1938, a good 2000 metres more range than the 105/M2.
careful with the swords mate.
Timbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
Peace
Somebody has to do what Moore does. Take an issue and work around it. In Bowling to Columbine he took the issue of guns in the US. Other than countries with a lot of political violence, the US is the only country with a "gun culture" so intertwine with the political culture.Nobody in the world would believe that the US went to Irak with "good intentions". If the goal was to make countries more democratic the US has a lot of countries to invade. It was oil control and a sense of left overs feelings from the first golf war.
Thank you Mr. Moore for making us think about this issues. By the way I never believe what the USA Today or the Fox News say. I place them at the same place with Mr. Moore. trying to advance their political points of view.
RubenSan Francisco, California
Were I a film maker who'd poured my soul into refining the art, I'd be very pissed that the winner was selected solely for his politics (it certainly wasn't for his crude film skills). The Palm D'Or has been substantially devalued as a true indicator of film excellence.
As I wrote somewhere down, my friend who saw all ( save three ) said it was a very good film...Beyond his politics..Now every is entlitle to have his own opinion...
but if Mr. Moore won an Oscar last year I would think that most people consider him a filmaker regardless of his politics.Is any bodt here seen the movie yet?
RubenSan Francisco, California
I've seen Moore's previous works, and found them tedious and contrived to the extent that they diminished his message. He's like the portraitists of the classical period who guaranteed sales by knowing what patrons want and ensuring that's what they're presented. Moore and his Cannes award are exemplary of what I think is the great problem of art since WWII; its dominance by "artists" who's skills in self-promotion greatly exceed their talent to express sentiment indirectly; by subtlety, allegory and analogy. There's little art to wielding a bludgeon.To me, there is no more artistic merit in a film that simply strings together manipulated segments of news clips and other mostly third party images under a narration expressly intended to inflame emotion. (I think that might also define propaganda.) The Cannes Jury is supposed to maintain the sense of film as art of merit that Hollywood long ago abandoned in favor of populism and profit. Instead, they sold out to politics.
***but if Mr. Moore won an Oscar last year I would think that most people consider him a filmaker regardless of his politics.How's that? You are not suggesting Hollywood is a politics-free zone? By all indications it is rabbidly and irrationally liberal, so Moore's film would be right up its alley.
Well I do. There was good intention and of course certain calcul. Like in you and me.
***Other than countries with a lot of political violence, the US is the only country with a "gun culture" so intertwine with the political culture.Yeah... like Switzerland. Lots of political violence.
Sorry, wrong forum...
But you proceed with making just silly unsupported claims. Like this one:
"Nobody in the world would believe that the US went to Irak with "good intentions". "
Well, perhaps you would not, and many others, but to say no one would believe is a lie.
I know it is hard to discuss a clearly political work without sliding into a potentially dirty political discussion... that is why in general I do not consider the "message and agenda charged" movies worth of my consideration and time.
Art has always been on the edge of sociaty. Is Moore and artist or a provocateur? Isn't that the same? What amazed me is how upset you got over the fact that he did well in Cannes.Is your problem that you actually like Bush? Why not saying that to begin with. That I can respect.
RubenSan Francisco, California
What does my liking or disliking of Bush have to do with the subject of movies?
By far you and Patrick are two of the most generous participants of this forum. I read at least 5 of your comments almost every day. It is clear to me that you were had a very strong opinions about "liberals" whatever your understanding of that.I think you should go back and comment on those old films you seem to love. Free of liberal thinking.........
RubenSan Francisco, California
"I do not consider the "message and agenda charged" movies worth of my consideration and time."*shrug*
Well that tosses out most of cannonized literature and art - and Will Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Shelley, Dickens etc - all of whom were writing "message and agenda charged" literature. Honestly some of these should be worth your consideration and time.
The films of Mr. Moore are the perfect example of this situation. There were people before me that made comments about Mr. Moore credibility making documentaries. You did not comment on those. You choose to comment on mine. Clearly something I said trigger you to respond. That was a political choice. Everything is political..... or nothing....
RubenSan Francisco, California
I only randomly sampled a few posts in this thread. What caught my attention in yours were several strong and wrong statements, that's all.That choice was of course political, and that is why I said I would rather not waste my time on political movies, especially the "documentaries" that are in essence lies.
To me any time art tries to carry political message it fails in the artistic department.
Hahahahaha. Wow you know nothing about artists then do you? Art throughout the ages has and is and will always be about commenting on the policies of the time. Music certainly is, and most Literature. If it isn't political chances are it's a waste of time from an art point of view.
Victor, you say "anytime art tries to carry political message it fails in the artistic department."What about Griffith's "Intolerance", Eisenstein's "Potemkin", Dohzhenko's "Earth", Reifenstahl's "Triumph of the Will", Ford's "The Grapes of Wrath", or Godard's "Weekend"?
Picasso's painting of "Guernica"?
I recall several days ago you discussed "Alexander Nevsky," a film about a Russian leader defeating a German army made in 1938. You do not think there is a political message there? Or if you think there is a political message there does it make the film an artistic failure in your opinion?
I am a little surprised by your statement. Michael Moore's film may be bad or good due to the way he handles his political statement. But just because he has a political message in there you believe it is a failure? Without even seeing it?Melville's book "Moby Dick, or The Whale" has problems, but I don't consider it an artistic failure because of his pointed criticism of Christian missionairies. I can't watch 99% of Godard's post-68 work because of the way he handles his political messages in the work, but it isn't the presence of his political message that I specifically object to.
I realize you were just responding to another poster with a brief note. But the last sentence of that note is quite a statement, and I would appreciate it if you would clarify or elaborate on it if you don't mind.
Thanks!
***I am a little surprised by your statement. Michael Moore's film may be bad or good due to the way he handles his political statement. But just because he has a political message in there you believe it is a failure? Without even seeing it?I guess you found something I never wrote - please show me where I said it was a failure. My problem with him is his politics and his apparent willingness to bend the truth to make his point - based on what I know about him. Based on that I shall not waste my time on this bomb thrower - I can throw bombs just as well, perhaps even further.
To answer your BIG question, I think Patrick already touched on the answer. There are different political flavors. Potemkin is not really a political work - it is a strongly humanist one rather than the promotion of any particular ideology, and that makes it stand on its own feet.
I guess my main objection is with making a political statement de jour in such an overt and in-your-face way that it dominates everything - things like Philadelphia. From what I read about Moore's film it is such work, therefore, knowing his political views it becomes simply a waste of time. I doubt you will find many parallels between, say, BFC and Potemkin, and I suspect fifty years down the road people will still watch the Eisenstein's work, but hardly anyone will recall the mundane Moore's works.
Ditto for Alexander Nevsky. That film is about fight for freedom - the notion so universal that it transcendes the political spectra. You can easily consider it just this way, without even realizing its political message.
Things like Triumph of the Will are harder nuts to crack, but even there I see the difference. Leni's work is that of an artist describing the wave of emotions taking place at that time - so she is more a documentary writer than a promoter of a particular idea. She is taken with the movement, she is obviously sympathetic to it, but she is still more of a landscape painter. She was equally enthusiastic and at home filming the mountains... I doubt it Moore's next film will be about the natural beauty of Nebraska.
"I guess you found something I never wrote - please show me where I said it was a failure. My problem with him is his politics and his apparent willingness to bend the truth to make his point - based on what I know about him. Based on that I shall not waste my time on this bomb thrower - I can throw bombs just as well, perhaps even further."I sincerely doubt you can. Michael Moore, lover him or hate him, is making films that people are watching. Unless I am missing something you are not and I doubt you can. Not a knock on you, it's just not easy to get the attention Moore has by making documentaries, which, itself isn't easy to get funded.
***it's just not easy to get the attention Moore has by making documentaries, which, itself isn't easy to get funded.Oh, yeah? Apparently Hollywood is on the mission today - the mission of destroying Bush. Apparently there is wave of anti-Bush (anti-conservative) films coming out... apparently there are also a few decidedly pro-Kerry films... so tell us more about how hard it is to get such funding - it is music to our ears.
Sheesh...
I said
***it's just not easy to get the attention Moore has by making documentaries, which, itself isn't easy to get funded.
Victor saidOh, yeah?
Yeah.Victor said
Apparently Hollywood is on the mission today - the mission of destroying Bush.Apparently you still suffer from the delusion that "Hollywood" is some single minded entity with an agenda.
Victor said
Apparently there is wave of anti-Bush (anti-conservative) films coming out...
What would that be, Van Helsing, Spiderman II and The Village?
" apparently there are also a few decidedly pro-Kerry films..."Such as? And please provide some support that whatever films you cite,if you cite any, are actually pro Kerry films. Tyr to remeber the time involved in taking a film from pitch to screen, if you have any idea what I am talking about.
Victor said
" so tell us more about how hard it is to get such funding - it is music to our ears."I have some second hand experience on this. A very good friend of mine has been involved in the productions of several documentaries. It is very difficult to fund them because it is very difficult to genrate any money from them. Many are funded by grants, There are usually hoops to jump through for grants. It can be a nightmare and it can take several years just to fund some documentaries.
Victor said
Sheesh...
Yeah, You spew so much opinion from so little actual knowledge about film making.Sheeeeeesh......
***Apparently you still suffer from the delusion that "Hollywood" is some single minded entity with an agenda.Cheap red herring. First - only a fool would deny that Hollywood is largely liberal.
Second - it doesn't take the whole Hollywood to perform a mission, only a few determined individuals with lots of money.
You are not suggesting there are no rabbid liberals with tons of money in Hollywood... that would be too much even for you.
Next you are gonna play us for complete idiots and suggest it is just as hard to get financing for a liberal viewpoint "documentary" as for a conservative one.
Sheesh indeed.
I said to Victor
***Apparently you still suffer from the delusion that "Hollywood" is some single minded entity with an agenda.
Victor said
Cheap red herring.Hardly. I guess you already forgot the content of your own post. Here is what you said... "Oh, yeah? Apparently Hollywood is on the mission today - the mission of destroying Bush."
Victor said
First - only a fool would deny that Hollywood is largely liberal.Hollywood is a large piece of real estate. Film makers are as diverse in their political beliefs as any other large group of the general population. Of course you ignore this diversity in your claim that "Hollywood" is out to get Bush. Your charge was naive and painfully simplistic. Only a fool would charge an entire industry with a singular mind.
Victor said
Second - it doesn't take the whole Hollywood to perform a mission, only a few determined individuals with lots of money.Fine. But you said "Hollywood" is out to get Bush. Your mistake , not mine. If you wish to talk about specific film makers that are out to get Bush go ahead. Cite them and discuss the situation. Your whinning about a "Hollywood" agenda here is just laughable though.
Victor said
You are not suggesting there are no rabbid liberals with tons of money in Hollywood... that would be too much even for you.
No I am not suggesting any such thing. I suggest you actually read my posts before reading things into them.
Victor said
Next you are gonna play us for complete idiots and suggest it is just as hard to get financing for a liberal viewpoint "documentary" as for a conservative one.
Prove it isn't.I see no list of anti-Bush pro Kerry movies that you claim are comming out. Figures.
I went mentally back to your "arguments" and nearly chocked on my pizza from laughing.You said:
"Hollywood is a large piece of real estate. Film makers are as diverse in their political beliefs as any other large group of the general population. Of course you ignore this diversity in your claim that "Hollywood" is out to get Bush. Your charge was naive and painfully simplistic. Only a fool would charge an entire industry with a singular mind."
I guess I will have to agree with you that it IS a piece of real estate - so chalk one point for your wisdom.
Next statement is... is... ignorant? Idiotic? Whatever. Everyone knows it is heavily liberal... could it be everyone but you?
A simplistic notion of Hollywood?
I can see Scott opening the morning paper and seeing the headline:
"Japan to increase its steel production by 10%"
Scott drops his toast in indignation. "Why - he yells - Japan is one large piece of real estate!" he proclaims!
"Their people are diverse! How could you say "Japan" when there very well may be a housewife in Yamatzuki that has nothing to do with the steel production increase! In addition there's also a still mill in Osaka that will be closing down!"
I truly admire your discussion power, Scott... it is just that I have little respect for such inaptitude.
nr
...and even no wife... instead - Scott's post on the computer!Pizza with a twist... I buy those for-one small ones, but then cover them *completely* with sliced pepperoni. That makes them moderately enjoyable.
If a wife is the food of love, then my dear you have all my compassion for lacking both of them...
...And a lot of olive oil, and a springle Origan...
...of refining the frozen supermarket pizza.I mean - anyone can make a good dish out of a frech chicken, but try THIS challenge!
What else should I dump (not sprinkle... DUMP!) on it?
Well a frozen pizza will never turn in a beautiful princess.
And it is so easy to make one .From scratch.
But it happen 3 to 4 time a year to put one of this beast in the oven.
I always buy a " bio " one with almost nothing on top, then I add some hot Italian sausage, mushrooms,fresh ham, olives, and Mozarella, Or plain tomato sauce, olives and anchovis...
But nothing taste as one made in the wooden oven with the right wood!
Still no substance from you just personal attacks. Nothing new.
Just what you deserve, Scott, nothing more, nothing less. You make idiotic statements - you take your lumps.
What lumps? You grand stand and offer no substance to support your opinions. Big Deal. Any dork with a computer and an online account can do what you do here. You may be laughing but you are also being laughed at. So what? Fortunately for the rest of us your opinions have no impact on the film world. So feel free to keep spitting in the wind.
Fortunately my opinion does have impact on film world. For some years now I have refused to pay to watch Hollywood films... lesse... several years, perhaps twenty films not watched a year, at probably $18 a pop, say, $10 form that goes to Hollywood, I guess that's maybe $1000 or so.But you are weaseling and changing subject. What on Earth does my impact have to do with your most idiotic discovery that Hollywood is large piece of real estate? Man, that was rich!
Next you even discovered there were some different people living there - well, Scott, time to reread Rabelais - there's a comparable discovery contained therein.
Nope you are inconsequencial to the film world and utterly clueless. Your impact on and knowledge of film go hand in hand. God I hope you are better at building amplifiers.
nt
***Your impact on and knowledge of film go hand in hand. God I hope you are better at building amplifiers.LOL! Why don't you also kick my dog while you are at it!
I have nothing against your dog. I do apologize. Even though I have never auditioned any of them, I am confident that you are indeed much much better at building amplifiers. I did not mean to disparage your product in any way.
I didn't find it very offensive, more humorous that anything, but I still appreciate your apology - needless to say being in the open (name and all) does invite some nasty comments, and usually without any apology... often quite mean.
***I see no list of anti-Bush pro Kerry movies that you claim are comming out. Figures.You obviously are not all that well informed - you should thank me for giving you this info.
So I am one step ahead of you - I know they are coming, and I heard the titles, but did not write them down, so I guess you will have to do your own legwork... if you do then perhaps you will get knowledgeable enough so we could continue this discussion instead of your usual hot air.
There is no leg work to do. You are making unsupported assertions. Get back to me when you have something of substance to report. Let me know if you ever figure out why your claims are amusingly naive and obviously incorrect. Time for you to do some home work.
Dear Scott, you have constitutional right to remain as ignorant as you wish.
Tell us again what you know about the production of documentary films, oh right you already did when you told us nothing about the subject. Talk about ignorance. Thankfully your impact on the film world is proportional to your knowledge of film production. I'll do the math for you 0=0.
Please forgive me if I put words in your mouth! I was extending the thought of your post's final statement. You said that "anytime art tries to carry political message it fails in the artistic department." Based on that I thought you would consider "Farenheit 911" a failure.Correct me if I am wrong: You do not mind politics in art, per se, just not overtly. You prefer any political comment to be underneath the work, as opposed to being "all over it".
I respectfully disagree with you. "Potemkin" and "Nevsky" have political messages and I personally do not think they are quite so hidden beneath "humanism" or "freedom".
You were silent on Picasso's "Guernica". Perhaps it is the exception that proves the rule?
Thank you for your response. And I agree with you re: comparison of Michael Moore and Sergei Eisenstien. Eisenstien's films WILL be viewed decades after Michael Moore's works are dust. And I say this as a fan of Moore's work. I suspect HE might agree with you too!
Take care and have fun, Victor!
***You were silent on Picasso's "Guernica". Perhaps it is the exception that proves the rule?Two reasons. One - Patrick already mentioned it. Two - I am in general not a great fan of Picasso... I feel his monumental nature, but I am not in love with most of his art.
Ah, and perhaps three... it's been many years since I saw Guernica, so I do not have fresh enough impression to comment on it - just to be fair.
But you are basically right - it is the overtness of the message that I object to. One can find messages in all works, if that is his inclination, sometimes it takes effort, but one should be completely dumb to miss it in Moore's work.
And thanks for giving me chance to look once again at Potemkin and Nevsky... however after some evaluation I still feel that the political message in these was not in your face, especially in Nevsky.
Call me dumb, but I must have watched it hundred times before someone told me about its message!
I guess that bring up the question about the type of the message. If it is present clearly in Petemkin, and really sticks out like a sore thumb in Philadelphia, you would never realize it was there in Nevsky - you would need to be told about it.
I would be the LAST person to "call you dumb", Victor! First, I am not the smartest person in the world by a long shot. Also, I do not purposely try to post things to insult anyone. I enjoy reading the different perspectives on film that people have.If I were to chance upon "Alexander Nevsky" without knowing anything about when it was made, what was going on between Germany and the Soviet Union, etc., I too would probably take it for only great film about a leader who leads his people into battle to repel a fearsome enemy. In fact, that is the way I enjoy it 98% of the time when I see it. I allow the context of its making to influence my enjoyment (and it only brings an additional smile to my face) the other 2% of the time!
Perhaps your experience of "Alexander Nevsky" is close to mine with "Citizen Kane". I chanced upon it late one night as a young teenager. My mother just said that it was an old film by Orson Welles about a newspaper publisher. She did not then (and maybe still does not) know anything about William Randolph Hearst,etc.
So I watched this movie and thoroughly enjoyed it. It was another six years or so before I knew the background behind it!I saw "Philadelphia" once. I did not hate it, but I never HAVE to see it again. "Nevsky", on the other hand, I will HAVE to get the Criterion edition! In fact, I am planning to get the Criterion edition of all of Eisenstien's sound films (at least the ones that Stalin's ministers allowed him to make)!
Believe me, I didn't take any offense.I think we are entering an interesting discussion topic here, which is much bigger than Moore, his films and the political undercurrents at Cannes or Oscars.
That is the hidden messages, or hidden baggage if you will.
I think we all can quickly see the overt messages, be it the BfC, Philadelphia (home of the best cream cheese!!!), Erin Brockovich (sp? Who cares!), or some other such film.
It is harder to spot when it is in the background.
These can include many things, like the political and historical situation at the time the movie was made, direct orders from the authorities, and things like important steps in artist/director development - his personal life, etc. etc... who knows, maybe his getting out of closet, having severe emotional trauma of losing loved ones, etc.
For instance, one could not evaluate properly such works as Pasolini's Salo without looking at his biography and the history of his relationship with public - both international and Italian.
But how on Earth could an average viewer be aware of all those underpinnings?
Even the most sophisticated ones probably miss many of them, and the majority of us catches very small proportion.
Often what happens is the movie leaves a profound mark on one's memory, and forces the viewer to look and dig deeper. But how common is that? How many of us, besides clark, that is, come to the theater having done excruciating background preparation? Most of us treat such excursions as recreation, not final exams.
From there one might draw a cynical conclusion - since the messages are not incorporated directly into the movies, they must be simply ignored.
Thus is it really wrong to simply watch Nevsky like most kids would, without even knowing who Stalin was?
I would argue that taken from that perspective that work would still represent a great achievement, and that no message, however strong, would make a bad movie great.
Many of us do enjoy learning about movies and what surrounds them, but the truth is there is so much there we simply can't possibly cover it all, so what is wrong with simply enjoying the work for its artistic merits? Nothing, really. Great art can be appreciated at infinite number of levels, and with more knowledge these levels change, and the work takes new forms, but important thing is it will never look weak, flat and shallow - even if you were to just scratch its surface.
So, if you will, I have no issues with the "dissolved" messages, those that are present in the work without calling attention to themselves. Art is always about subtlety and finesse of means of expression, and the same applies to the messages, I think.
Just a few random thoughs during some idle moment at work.
nt
There are different degree of political messages made by artists. Some are more humanistic or more philosophical, some related to more actual events.
And the last one is the more difficult to achieve, as too much catch and sqeezed in his own time. Of course there are exceptions!
I donīt think that Picassoīs " Guernica " is a good one. The intention very touching, the art...Not for me.
the italian and french master filmakers you like soo much and celebrate (Sicca, Trufault, etc.) all the time had a political goal with their movies. I agree that art should be the creation of something that inspire, provoque, etc. But thinking that when art expresses politics some how looses the art is naive.Movies like the ones Mr. Moore are definelely art becauses they provoque discussion of relevant issues. Like the thusand of people that have been killed in the middle east. Hopefully sociaty would discuss these issues more so no more people keeps dying there.
RubenSan Francisco, California
"...they provoque discussion of relevant issues."The Central Park jogger's rape and savage beating provoked the discussion of relevant issues.
Would you call it a form of art?
the issues are just the beginning. The artist does something with the idea. It transform the idea into something that provokes discussion. Hey, the people of Cannes decided that the movie was worthed because it did just that. Povoked a lot of talk.....
RubenSan Francisco, California
It is hard for us to get into the heads of the jury members to know exactly what made them do it.Perhaps they simply loved it from the artistic standpoint - who knows? But all this is suspect today - when in the hightly charged anti-American atmosphere the movie with apparently strong anti-American tones scores high one has to wonder.
As we know, some European minds are not exactly sympathetic to the US.
"It is hard for us to get into the heads of the jury members to know exactly what made them do it.
Perhaps they simply loved it from the artistic standpoint - who knows? But all this is suspect today - when in the hightly charged anti-American atmosphere the movie with apparently strong anti-American tones scores high one has to wonder.As we know, some European minds are not exactly sympathetic to the US."
Anti-American? What makes you think this movie or the film maker is anti-American? He claims to be quite the opposite. I have never seen him say down with America. The movie is about Bush and his family and the Bin Ladens. There is certainly more to America than Bush. One is not anti-American just because one is critical of Bush.
Who is not anti -American Now in Europe ? Of course only IF America equals Mr. Bush...Or Mr. Or Mr..... We are very condescent here in Europe...
Actuall and factually the last US president must have been Mr. Kennedy.
I was in Paris in September 11. That was my first day in my French vacation. I stayed for a whole month in France. People stoped me in the street to show me their feelings for what happened in 9/11. On 9/13 I was amazed at the moment of silence that the entire country did for the victims of 9/11. I think our president destroy all that good will by acting like a roman emperor after 9/11. Did not care about any other opinions. They were going to do what they wanted to do whether other nations like it or not..My initial coments about the fries happened at the US congress, tell me about being silly. Our congress............ silly for voting to use billions of dollars for Irak while the schools and health clinics in our country are falling apart.............
RubenSan Francisco, California
Those all would have some validity if we were discussing some French movie and its score during the Oscars, or some geo-political issues... as it is, this thread was about Moore's film, so perhaps we should stick with it.What I said was that its score was tainted by the current political climate.
One of my favorite (of many) lines in "Breaking Away" is when the father is complaining about his son's attraction to all things Italian. The father says, "It's all this ' I-TI ini' food, zuchini, fettechini, I want some AMERICAN food. I want FRENCH FRIES!"
. . . that 4 of the jurors at Cannes were Americans too . . .
It doesn't. Unless you don't know that many simply hate the current administration... and I mean hate, not dislike. And hatred is blinding.
. . . . it's easy to say that Cannes has a French and Euro bias. But when half the judges are Americans, that bias goes out the window.Maybe it's just a good movie?
But again YOU'RE already making judgements about it, aren't you?
Well that half of the judges are US citizen that do not mean anything. The fact is that the actual govenement of the USA stirs a lot of heat and hate everywhere. There may l lay the reponse.
nt
RubenSan Francisco, California
d
Moore built a better mousetrap and with the added cheese, ...err fromage, from Cannes, we'll definitely get to see his masterful deconstruction of the Bush regime before the election. :o)AuPh
That is another story....The critic I heard on the Radio was that " Mr. Moore is masterful at shooting himself in the foot...
;0)
O, boy, Jeff... looks like the elections are like heat wave - no relief from it! :-)And here I was, thinking discussing the movies was good way of reducing my blood pressure after listening to the NPR!
...it looks doubtful that they'll find a USA distributor for the film.
You can make them but you can't see them.
nt
nt
... to win the top prize at Cannes... I heard this on the radio today so I'm not that knowledgeable, it was a Jacque Cousteau film from around 1954
nt
sorry excuse for a film maker.He should be required to drop the title "documentary" from his films, b/c some people might be fooled into thinking his "documentaries" actually represent some kind of truth..
I argued with someone about Moore on another BB when Columbine came out on DVD. I won't do it again because it's not going to change anyone's mind, but I will try and explain to others, like Bambi why you feel this way.This other guy directed me to a website (I wish I still had the URL, but I don't) that explained dozens of continuity discrepancies in BFC that show that Heston didn't actually make that speech in Denver right after the shootings and several other things. Facts is facts, Heston didn't change his tie in mid speech, did he?
Now, here's the difference. People like the guy that argued with me for days on end and JonL want to just throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yeah, Moore may have used a few "artistic License" moments in BFC, but, the facts remain solid through 90% of the film. Jon thinks that if 10% of the film is manipulated, then 100% must be and that just isn't the case. The overall "big picture" content of BFC was right on the mark.
Can't wait to see F911.
however, I should probably see it just to see what all of the fuss is about. Both actually.Chris
Or do you just throw away 10% of it?And gulp down the rest.;^)
. . . that's not applicable in this context, wouldn't you say?Look, even if you take all the liberties that website said he took and cut them out of the movie, you're still left with a lot of irrefutable facts. You can't deny it if you saw the movie.
If one were to acknowledge that some lies were present in the "documentary" work, that would put the WHOLE work under question, as there would not be any indication of which portion were facts and which lies.There is no such thing as 90% truth. If you already admitted he lied, then he is a liar... that is simple.
There is no such thing as 90% truth. If you already admitted he lied, then he is a liar... that is simple.Yes, I understand this line of thinking. But it's wrong. There were hundreds of points made in the film, only a few were questionable. It's like saying if a person lies once, everything out of his mouth is a lie. Period. I'm afraid it's just not like that.
The world just isn't that black and white. It's a lot more grey than that.
Besides, I don't see a lot of it as outright lies. Some liberties were taken in the editing and there were some factual innaccuracies, many of which are only slightly off.
I see this as more of a few Moore haters with their own agendas latching onto a few shreds in an attempt to discredit the entire message of the film.
Did you see BfC, Vic?
.
No, I didn't see BfC, as I am not interested in listening to another presentation of anti-gun position... I spent tremendous amount of time in my life studying the subject and I know where I stand.However, more importantly, I would not waste my time on work of a bitter spiteful individual full of hatred - I have better things in life.
. . . . that means that you are not in a position to make a judgement on the content of the film. Your comment "bitter spiteful individual full of hatred" is WAY off the mark.You should have no opinion about it because you haven't seen it.
Why do so many people choose to make judgements about Moore's movies without seeing them?
Please write then this message down - I have not expressed my opinion on that film - do you finally get it?Regarding the content - this is different story. Much has been written on it, so one can be familiar with it.
But that is not important... if you don't see Moore as spiteful and full of hatred, that is your right - I have no problem with it. Many would disagree with you on this one... but what does this have to do with movies?
It certainly looks like you have something stuck somewhere, as your last sentence is completely without any basis, as far as I can see.
I haven't done that, and have no intention of doing it, but one could certainly ask the question of the type: "The quoted source provided clear evidence of fact manipulation on part of Moore that is pure misrepresentation and lies - what is your response regarding that particular episode?"
See, no general comments, just a detailed analysis of his lies would suffice. Whether you like or don't his film is your problem, if you can'f address his lies that is another... AND FACTUAL.
Someone mentioned the changing tie episode... if you want to take just this small one and defend it - go ahead, if not - I see no reason to change my opinion on Moore.
I need some strenght....I must resource maself....
Target shooting maybe. In true spirit of Moore's film discussion.
n t
Regarding the content - this is different story. Much has been written on it, so one can be familiar with it.No. If you want to comment on the content of a movie, you have to see that content and make the judgement on your own. You cannot rely of the judgements of very negatively biased individuals that write slanderous articles about it.
But that is not important... if you don't see Moore as spiteful and full of hatred, that is your right - I have no problem with it. Many would disagree with you on this one... but what does this have to do with movies?
It has to do with the fact that you're making judgements of the film maker without seeing his film.
It certainly looks like you have something stuck somewhere, as your last sentence is completely without any basis, as far as I can see.
Hardly. It seems that the people that choose to argue against Moore and his films are the ones that HAVEN'T SEEN them!
one could certainly ask the question of the type: "The quoted source provided clear evidence of fact manipulation on part of Moore that is pure misrepresentation and lies - what is your response regarding that particular episode?"
Someone mentioned the changing tie episode... if you want to take just this small one and defend it - go ahead, if not - I see no reason to change my opinion on Moore.
I am not defending it. It is an isolated incident that really has no bearing on the the other factual content of the film.
Why is it OK for Hardy and Kopel to use the same techniques in their articles about the film, but it's not OK for Moore to use them?
It beats me sometimes how one could be simply repeating a lie or a missguided statement without paying any attention to the other side.So - I guess you would agree I have not made comments on the film. Maybe not.
Jon L,We hear so many conlicting comments, some of which include stements like yours concerni the validity of Moore's content. I would appreciate your listing some of the more prominent factual errors and/or untruths in Moore's films.
Moore, who studied at a seminary to become a priest and ran a home for troubled teenagers seems so gentle and sincere in his hopes for American working people. But there must have some sinister agenda he is expert at hiding to produce such reactions!
Cheers,
Bambi B
A fairly comprehensive list linked below.
Who is this David Hardy guy?Who does he work for? What's his agenda?
Has anyone actually bothered to check all his comments for their validity?
I suspect that there is a lot of same types of contextural manipulation going on here that he accuses Moore of doing. There's a lot in that page that could be argued either way and lot that throws the baby out with the bathwater. Reread it with the same jaundiced and cynical eye with which you view Moore's film and you'll see what I mean.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.htmlhttp://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp
Moore is a polemicist, not a documentarian-he just happens to work primarily in the medium of film.
Moore is a polemicist, not a documentarian-he just happens to work primarily in the medium of film.Polemicist, yes, but I see him as a decent documentarian with some questionable research skills and a star complex.
I read that Kopel piece. Talk about a polemicist! And not a very good one. He firstly assumes that the people that went to see Spinal Tap concerts and buy the records were all too stupid to get the joke. Perhaps thay saw the satire being carried further? Naw, no one's THAT stupid.
He proceeds to intimate that Marylin Manson and video games WERE soley to blame. Then he obviously doesn't "get" why Moore bought the rifle in the bank by opening an account. The segment was about the far reaching implications that yes, you can EVEN get a gun at a bank. This Kopel guy has no sense of the absurdity of it all. Don't YOU?
The Lockheed sequence: His insistence that "While one killer's father once served in the Air Force, neither family worked in the defense industry." Well, no kidding. That was never really implied in the movie. Kopel's trying to whitewash over the fact Moore was really showing- that we are, as a society numbed by the fact that even our corporate culture revolves around weapons, violence and killing of other humans.
So what if that exact B52 didn't kill those people on Xmas in Viet Nam? Does that mean that no B52 killed them all? Kopel's line of reasoning is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater that I keep talking about.
The rest of the article is literally packed with this same sort of half baked research and self-serving conservative corporate rhetoric, but I'm gonna stop here because the point I'm really trying to make here is not that Moore is more correct than Kopel, but that Kopel is guilty of the SAME kind of slanderous polemics.
It just depends WHO'S polemics you care to believe in.
*
and while he said that the film was a worthy winner based on sheer audacity, pomp and circumstance, it was neither a good piece of fiction or nonfiction. He also felt that it wasn't even a good documentary, but given today's political climate, especially in France, it had to win.Chris
Absolutely! This the way I see it too. It is just " modern anti- Americanism. " That will not exclude that this film contain some penible things about the actual policy of the Bush administration, of course...PS: See my post under.
.
"some people might be fooled into thinking his 'documentaries' actually represent some kind of truth."While others are fooled into thinking that documentaries are able to represent the truth in the first place. Frederick Wiseman is about as close as it gets to objective unbiased documentary filmmaking, and even he admits that it is impossible for the documentary filmmaker to completely avoid imparting his/her own ideas about the subject material onto the film.
It's never black and white. You may make a reasonable claim that Moore is near the bottom of the slippery slope, but it is still just one shade of gray.
Let the fur continue to fly....
Moore's film seems like it ought to be in a the cartoon category with Shrek 2. Or more realiztically, shouldn't it be entered in the advertising category?It's little more than a political ad filled with half-truth and a skewed view of his version reality.
;^)
nt
.
.
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
.
... really, that was funny... good one!
Is this the first documentary (if one can call Moore's films documentaries) to win the Palme d'Or?
Yes it falls under the category of " documentaires " I think it is the first time. But not absolutely certain are there are some films I did not see, and where coming from Africa or countries from the third part of the world ( that is what we says here ) and the titles were never translated.
I think that this years nomination has to be understood as a political move for freedom from France to the USA....( Tarantino did the speach ) as for finding a way for a distribution of this picture in your country.
Lest anyone fall for the Fox News / O'Reilly / Limbaugh spin on this, "the French" did not give Farenheit 911 an award. Only one member of the Cannes jury was a French citizen. As Moore himself noted the majority of jury members were from countries that are members of the so - called "coalition of the willing."
***As Moore himself noted the majority of jury members were from countries that are members of the so - called "coalition of the willing."So? I thought I would die before I would hear an argument this simplistic. Thanks for proving me wrong.
Have you missed the fact that even in Spain only about half the voters voted for new leader?
nt
.
nt
Do you think that it was the BEST film of the festival...And not to understimate the political influence of the organisator...I just tried to get my friend in France, he now the intern thing going on there, but he did not have his portable on...I may check tomorrow.
I have no idea, I wasn't there. I do know that many film critics - not all of them Americans - thought it was not only Moore's best film but one of the most powerful documentaries ever. How strong were the other films? I don't know, but I see in today's New York Times that the Thai entry was widely criticized as boring, for example. So it's conceivable that Farenheit 911 was indeed the best movie in the competition.
So I got my friend this morning on the phone. He saw all the films presented to the festival, minus three.
He did found Fahrenheit the best of all! He is against the Irak war I must say. But without even this bia he still found it best. He says this film may age rapidly because of his actuallity, but even in this case this documentary is excellent. And if this a true depiction of reality ( what he think it is ) it is really frightul.
He his very conservative, and it really shows deep down all classes in society in Europe the negativism against the USA.
" Che " was a good film I just read. And Hollywood is making a remake soon.....
I try to get my friend again but he is on the plane to Paris..So I will get him tomorrow morning. He saw all of them, and he knows all the guys over there in Cannes. I let you know.
I haven't been following it, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't get very good distribution in the U.S. If nothing else, it should easily make a profit. Bowling For Columbine cost about $4M and grossed $21M in the U.S. and $36M outside the U.S. This one should be way more popular still. So someone will pick it up and do a good job.Should be interesting. I can't wait for the fur to fly.
He was totally happy this evening in Cannes. More that that!
They are in different worlds and you and I bear the weight of both.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
