-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Wow! Liberals going on a tirade against Michael Moore's film
- Thread starter ----
- Start date
- Status
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
In the end, all of these absurd Halliburton/oil/Saudi conspiracy theories distract from legitimate criticism of our Iraq policy, which has not been without its faults. Moore's views are political-science-101 carciatures. He has complete contempt for his audience and a stunning ignorance of history. He is not worth your $8.50, unless you have your mind made up and want a pat on the back for being smarter than everybody who supports Bush.
From David Brooks' column in the New York Times yesterday:
"In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: "The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich."....
Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: "You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe." In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: "It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."....
In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, "Should such an ignorant people lead the world?" Then he began to reflect on things economic. His central insight here is that the American economy, like its people, is pretty crappy, too: "Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way."
Well said Moore. The largest economy in human history--that holds lotteries for visas in our foreign embassies--isn't a good model is it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/26/o...Opinion/Editorials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists
From David Brooks' column in the New York Times yesterday:
"In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: "The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich."....
Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: "You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe." In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: "It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."....
In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, "Should such an ignorant people lead the world?" Then he began to reflect on things economic. His central insight here is that the American economy, like its people, is pretty crappy, too: "Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way."
Well said Moore. The largest economy in human history--that holds lotteries for visas in our foreign embassies--isn't a good model is it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/26/o...Opinion/Editorials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists
The second time it should be ignored because it's an irrelevancy.Milhouse31 said:
"motion picture that shapes and interprets factual material for purposes of education or entertainment."
Every film in existence can be defined as a documentary under this definition if you're going to call Moore's films documentaries!
One way Moore "interprets factual material" is by splicing together different interviews to give different context and meaning. I can argue Star Wars is a documentary on such a basis, e.g. a model of Alderaan, "factual material", was shown to be blown up in Star Wars. George Lucas gives the "factual material" a different context by making it look like a huge object and meaning by adding a space-like background and explosion special effect.
Conversation between Obi-wan and Han-solo happened because Alec Guinness and Harrison Ford did talk to each other, this "factual material" was then "shaped and interpreted" by George Lucas for the purposes of entertainment.
If Bowling for Columbine is a documentary so is the Wizard of Oz.
Amazing how people will scream blue murder over connections between Halliburton and the Presidency but will miss the obvious link between Tarantino and Moore.Milhouse31 said:
All liberals are socialists?! No.Milhouse31 said:
Justin Bailey
------ ------
A bit off topic, but have you guys checked out this documentary in the works?
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/
mjq jazz bar
Banned
You think you're making sense, but trust me, you're not.cja said:
and that proves what? this film was pretty much a lock to win, you are looking at a panel made up of leftists judging an America bashing film shown in France. you can't get a better lock than that.
oh for the love of... Why don't you just post the "all jews were told to stay home on 9/11" warning. its on the same wavelength.
who cares, They hated Reagan, Euros got in a snit even with Clinton over Kosovo, hating America is not something new, its just that a bunch of you got suckered into that "WE ARE ALL AMERICANS NOW!" bullshit. There is a lot of revisionist history going.
An example is this Harvard professor who is either ignorant or a liar saying Bush is the first American president in a long time to get an icy Ireland behavior.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5305194/site/newsweek/
but the reality is Reagan got protested a lot over there and in the rest of Europe, more so than Bush has up to this point. But some young people just believe the stuff shoveled to them.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nytimes...As+Ireland+Visit+Ends,+5,000+Protesters+March
damn it, congrats to Israel for whacking another militant leader this weekend. I forgot to post about that.
Nice conspiracy theory that has been proven false over and over again, BTW, if you are in the oil business and have anything to do with Saudi Arabia, you most likely are going to deal with bin laden's family. its pretty much unavoidable.
Coming back to this... it occured to me that all of these do indeed have a thing in common. While Micheal Moore happens to be the bad scholarship apple of the bunch, they are all vocal opponents of the Bush Administration... which makes me wonder... why is it so disturbing? Because he's been doing a wonderful job? That can't be the case by any stretch of imagination. Because he's our El Presidente and dissent is treason?
Well, that's the angle Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity are pushing, and it certainly would be bad if Democrats were nothing but traitors. Why, they shouldn't even be in government if that were the case!
Oh, and you might want to distinguish what America "has done" and what America "is doing".
Banjo Tango
Member
Obviously if Moore had the objectivity and integrity of Tallerico, ----- would love this movie.mjq jazz bar said:
Uhmm.. The big topic of the movie was not Bush's ties to the Saudis, nor was it Afganistan or Al Qaeda. The big topic was why all the US soldiers were sent to Iraq.
The movie was very one-sided and manipulative. However there was a lot of footage and interviews in it that provided a little more insight into the situation over there. Regardless of the onesidedness, it is very interesting information. I don't know how people can comment on a movie that they haven't seen. Someone in the thread said that they didn't want to subject themselves to propaganda. Really though, how dumb do you have to be to go into this thing with a totally subjective view, especially if you are against its viewpoint. Like it's suddenly gonna convert you?
I liken this film to an editorial. It makes an argument based on opinion, supplies its supporting evidence and sticks in its rhetoric for the dimwitted. They are almost never fair, but they let you in on another perspective to a situation.
Polarization is just making idiots of us all.
The movie was very one-sided and manipulative. However there was a lot of footage and interviews in it that provided a little more insight into the situation over there. Regardless of the onesidedness, it is very interesting information. I don't know how people can comment on a movie that they haven't seen. Someone in the thread said that they didn't want to subject themselves to propaganda. Really though, how dumb do you have to be to go into this thing with a totally subjective view, especially if you are against its viewpoint. Like it's suddenly gonna convert you?
I liken this film to an editorial. It makes an argument based on opinion, supplies its supporting evidence and sticks in its rhetoric for the dimwitted. They are almost never fair, but they let you in on another perspective to a situation.
Polarization is just making idiots of us all.
cja said:
Even if that is true [arguable], that still does not put Bowling For Columbine in the same genre as The Wizard of Oz.
Documentaries are limited by the footage and the subjects that they have access to, and are then editted. They are snapshots of reality, pieced together according to the filmmaker's vision. The accuracy of the constructed message is irrelevant from its categorization.
shuri said:
I've seen plenty of nature documentaries where they go out of their way to show how bad of an effect humans have had on the environment and how that affects the animal's behaviors. And it's usually a lot more one-sided than the stuff Michael Moore does.
Saw the film today, and since I don't have much time I'll just throw these tidbits in:
Moore does not at any point in the entire movie portray America as bad, but rather, the people in power who he presents as taking everyone for fools. American soldiers are portrayed as victims of a system, not instigators of injustice.
The sequence of scenes with the soldier's mother smacks of emotional manipulation.
There wasn't any ambiguity what was going on or what was being said in the house raid scene. The soldiers didn't have subtitles, but they were speaking english.
While Moore doesn't offer up conspiracy theories concerning the Saudi, he flirts with their possibility... maybe with the assumption that the audience will go the rest of the way, I dunno. I would have appreciated it if he stuck with the more concrete and provable theory that the pre-existing Bush/Saudi relationship had an adversarial effect on Bush's judgement, because that's what where the substantive evidence presented pointed.
Relying on old women who may or may not be well read on the subject to offer your point isn't the best way to go about things.
The blank screen scene after the opening credits made me lose it. Cried.
FINAL JUDGEMENT: C+, I really didn't like how Moore felt the need to embellish material that didn't need any. This movie should have been made by somebody else, but as somebody else on the internet has suggested, maybe he's just playing the same game Limbaugh has been the master of for so many years... rather than offering up a concrete and compelling indictment... which is what I would have liked.
Moore does not at any point in the entire movie portray America as bad, but rather, the people in power who he presents as taking everyone for fools. American soldiers are portrayed as victims of a system, not instigators of injustice.
The sequence of scenes with the soldier's mother smacks of emotional manipulation.
There wasn't any ambiguity what was going on or what was being said in the house raid scene. The soldiers didn't have subtitles, but they were speaking english.
While Moore doesn't offer up conspiracy theories concerning the Saudi, he flirts with their possibility... maybe with the assumption that the audience will go the rest of the way, I dunno. I would have appreciated it if he stuck with the more concrete and provable theory that the pre-existing Bush/Saudi relationship had an adversarial effect on Bush's judgement, because that's what where the substantive evidence presented pointed.
Relying on old women who may or may not be well read on the subject to offer your point isn't the best way to go about things.
The blank screen scene after the opening credits made me lose it. Cried.
FINAL JUDGEMENT: C+, I really didn't like how Moore felt the need to embellish material that didn't need any. This movie should have been made by somebody else, but as somebody else on the internet has suggested, maybe he's just playing the same game Limbaugh has been the master of for so many years... rather than offering up a concrete and compelling indictment... which is what I would have liked.
So, I make a five minute short using the "limited" footage of a subject like dubya and then edit it so I make him say exactly what I want him to say. The sort of stuff on a short comedy skit, that'd be a documentary? "I love Al-queda and want to do Osama bin-Laden up the ass". Has Bush said "ass" on tape? Well if not change for shoot, rear, back <cut> side...GG-Duo said:
Of course it'd be a pathetic exercise and not manipulate people like Moore can with $6m but it'd still be a documentary under your definition one I'm sure is supported by Harvey Weinstein who is making tens of millions of dollars from this movie along with his brother. Of course this couldn't be the same Weinstein guy who has mythical powers of persuasion in Oscar voting under the Miramax label and it couldn't be the same guy who made Tarantino millions of dollars more by suggesting he split Kill Bill into two volumes.
Thanks for being the only person to give a reasonable response.
You're going to have to tell me what you consider "real". Watched thousands on TV if you consider historical, science and nature programming to be "real".shuri said:
mjq jazz bar
Banned
I felt as though a woman was hired to scream at Mrs. Lipscomb in that scene outside the White House. Something about all of that looked really, really contrived. And if that's the case, that'd be very shameful.
it's certainly not his best film artistically (and critically as i said before). most of his films have the extremely polished feel you can only get by going over every single second of film 100 times in the editing room. however, i would say that, imperfect as it is, this is easily his most important film.
i really doubt that woman was some kind of actress, but i certainly can't disprove it
i really doubt that woman was some kind of actress, but i certainly can't disprove it
cja said:
Actually, yes, you could argue that's a documentary.
However, even if I follow your hypothesis, that still doesn't make it the same as the fictional films you listed. Cutting a piece of reality is still different from cutting a piece of the scripted.
... and going back to our original topic, Michael Moore's films are documentaries.
mjq jazz bar
Banned
I don't want to believe it is, and I don't see why Moore would do something that ridiculously dishonest, but I, my father, and a few friends all felt the same way.fart said:
Saw it tonight. Enjoyed it. Am to lazy to write up impressions, though I feel similarly about the film in certain respects as fart, mjq jazz, and hitokage (not to imply that they all felt the same about it, I just identified with certain things that each of them said).
Met some nice people waiting in line, genuinely upset with bush, solidly liberal (no surprise) but what did surprise me was the pure diversity of the crowd. I expecteed younger people/college students etc, But seriously there where people there in age ranging from teens to (I'd guess) 80's. Very stratified across all ages which was interesting. (I talked with one grandmother about her visits to Italy and the Vatican the day before bush visited 2 weeks ago)
The there was a funny piece of "vandall/art" immediately outside of the theater. Some one had appropriated a pink basken robins sign, painted over certain words and appropriated other words, then replicated the font and put up the "a dictatorship would be a whole lot easier" quote as seen in the film. Not the highest quality billboard screw job I have seen ("Gap's" everybody in swastikas topped it) but still funny because my GF and I looked at several times before we noticed, and the actual B&R Billboard has the words "Subliminal Message #9" at the top. lol
Met some nice people waiting in line, genuinely upset with bush, solidly liberal (no surprise) but what did surprise me was the pure diversity of the crowd. I expecteed younger people/college students etc, But seriously there where people there in age ranging from teens to (I'd guess) 80's. Very stratified across all ages which was interesting. (I talked with one grandmother about her visits to Italy and the Vatican the day before bush visited 2 weeks ago)
The there was a funny piece of "vandall/art" immediately outside of the theater. Some one had appropriated a pink basken robins sign, painted over certain words and appropriated other words, then replicated the font and put up the "a dictatorship would be a whole lot easier" quote as seen in the film. Not the highest quality billboard screw job I have seen ("Gap's" everybody in swastikas topped it) but still funny because my GF and I looked at several times before we noticed, and the actual B&R Billboard has the words "Subliminal Message #9" at the top. lol
i have some limited experience shooting on the street and people do crazy shit when they see a camera sometimes. i think the oddness of the lady's line of questioning had to do with her seeing michael moore and a camera. as one can see from some reactions to the film, a lot of people (who may or may not be 100% familiar with moore's work) think he's just some camera toting looney who stages elaborate pranks in service of "liberal" propaganda claiming such specious bullshit as "guns kill people" and "there don't seem to be any nuclear weapons in iraq". well anyways, i didn't see any evidence that the footage was staged. maybe you saw something i didn't.mjq jazz bar said:
It did have a strange "feel" to it (though I admit I was almost watching out for it since I had read what mjq wrote earlier).
I don't think it was staged (though ironically enough that is exaclty what the woman who comes over is saying), I have been doing some movie work recently as well and I can totally feel fart's assesment. The lady who interupted probably thought she was doing some act of goodness, by intervening into what she thought was fake. Though the mother's reaction is odd as well, though I would definately just go WTF if someone ran over and did that too.
I don't think it was staged (though ironically enough that is exaclty what the woman who comes over is saying), I have been doing some movie work recently as well and I can totally feel fart's assesment. The lady who interupted probably thought she was doing some act of goodness, by intervening into what she thought was fake. Though the mother's reaction is odd as well, though I would definately just go WTF if someone ran over and did that too.
I dunno, I didn't get any weird vibe from that scene. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was Moore's idea, but that didn't mean it was staged or scripted. And I couldn't imagine Moore completely risking the credibility of the movie and himself by using an actress like that, so I seriously doubt she was an actress.
- Status