 
|
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 |
In Reply to: Michael Moore won the Cannes festival... posted by patrickU on May 22, 2004 at 11:34:32:
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..
Follow Ups:
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....
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
