PDA

View Full Version : Michael Moore...



peter eldergill
2005-May-10, 04:01 AM
Hey all (well, all that read this, anyway..)

I enjoy watching Micheal Moore's folms although I know he like to "bend" the truth a bit. Most of the time I agree with what he's trying to say.

Anyhow, I saw Bowling for Columbine and Roger and Me, but not F911

Is there a general consensus here about him? Just curious to hear other people's opinions. I know there is a video "debunking" him on F911, but how accurate is this piece? How do we know it's any more accurate that Moore's piece?

Later

Pete

PS I have no idea why I thought of this....maybe 'cause I just found out I suck at starcraft....wait, that doesn;t make a lick of sense!

Off to watch the daily show!

Musashi
2005-May-10, 04:07 AM
Well. It really is outside the scope of this board, but Moore has zero credibility.

Maksutov
2005-May-10, 04:13 AM
Well. It really is outside the scope of this board, but Moore has zero credibility.
Ditto. Roger & Me was sporadically interesting, but contained the obvious seeds of Moore becoming a prima donna. And the rest is pseudo-history!

Van Rijn
2005-May-10, 04:22 AM
In one sense he is within the scope of the board: He is like the moon hoax folks, he tells stories without good evidence to back them up, and has no credibility. But, it is very easy to get into a political argument over the subject, so I'll leave it at that.

Metricyard
2005-May-10, 04:25 AM
Well. It really is outside the scope of this board, but Moore has zero credibility.
Ditto. Roger & Me was sporadically interesting, but contained the obvious seeds of Moore becoming a prima donna. And the rest is pseudo-history!

I find Mr. Moore likes to re-edit history to his liking. Plus, one of his latest comments on small business (http://www.leftwatch.com/archives/years/2002/000035.html) didn't sit with me at all. (Yes' I'm a small business owner)

***** Warning on link, foul language ahead ******

Typical loud, rich, self-important hollywood type, in my opinion.

Edit: Changed link to something a little cleaner.

jt-3d
2005-May-10, 05:20 AM
There are a few sites out there that take Bowling for Columbine apart pretty effectively. Moore doesn't just bend the truth, he manufactures his own. Frankly I advise abstinence.

paulie jay
2005-May-10, 06:19 AM
I enjoy watching his stuff. Sure, he's stirrer and he can bark up the wrong tree at times, but I think I'm smart enough to spot it. But like with all things really, form your own opinion - don't just go off what other people say.

Charlie in Dayton
2005-May-10, 06:39 AM
I've sat here for awhile cogitating on Michael Moore's position in American filmmaking and political action. I keep coming up with comparisons to Richard Hoagland. I can't bring myself to put them into words, though.

I don't dislike RCH that much...

jami cat
2005-May-10, 11:53 AM
"Mountain's and Molehill's", should be the name of his next film. #-o

farmerjumperdon
2005-May-10, 12:53 PM
I found F911 and Bowling interesting. I don't know how much is true or false; I'll have to check out the critique; then wonder how much of it is true or false - where does it end?

I do appreciate that he gets people thinking and talking about some of our most serious problems - the biggest one (my personal #1 that is) being our thru the roof murder rate and how complacent we are with it as a culture. I'm not saying that many people personally are OK with murder, but that as a supposedly civilized culture we seem to be ineffective in at least reducing it to the level of other industrialized nations.

The latest story out of Zion IL is just sickening. Why do we have such a disproportionate number of murderous people in our population? Mr Moore may be more about entertainment than revealing the truth, but it's good that he at least puts the topics out there.

peter eldergill
2005-May-10, 01:20 PM
I know it was a bit off topic for here, but I was thinking in terms of "bending the truth", etc....

Thanks for the input, it's very illuminating

Pete

Russ
2005-May-10, 01:48 PM
I've sat here for awhile cogitating on Michael Moore's position in American filmmaking and political action. I keep coming up with comparisons to Richard Hoagland. I can't bring myself to put them into words, though.

I don't dislike RCH that much...

Hey CID, keeping in mind that I hold Mr. Hoagland in the same regard as you, I think there is no need to abase and degrade Hoagland in this manner.

;)

farmerjumperdon
2005-May-10, 01:53 PM
So who's got a link to the better of the Moore debunking sites? I'm looking for something nuetral & objective - not a diatribe from the other extreme. In other words - NO LIMBAUGH or his wannabees.

papageno
2005-May-10, 01:55 PM
I actually liked Bowling For Columbine, especially the "Brief History of the U.S." cartoon.
Based on my limited knowledge of American society, he might have pointed out an aspect of that society that is usually not brought up when dealing with their problem with guns.
However, I would not use his films as historical documents.

I saw Fahrenheit 911 and was not really impressed.
The bias was a bit excessive.
But it might have been a healthy viewing before the elections n the U.S.

Oh yes, both films are better when Michael Moore is not in the picture.

farmerjumperdon
2005-May-10, 02:28 PM
I forgot about the cartoon. That was actually very good, very funny, and IMO on the money.

A'a
2005-May-10, 04:05 PM
Whn talking about Michael Moore, it is important to remeber that one of his first films was Candian Bacon (http://imdb.com/title/tt0109370/). Anyone watching Fahrenheit 911 should definetly watch this movie first. Everything after that should be taken with a grain of salt.

peter eldergill
2005-May-10, 04:17 PM
I thought Canadian Bacon was hilarious. Really funny but a bit dated now. A bit alarming also showing how easily some people can be infulenced into activism (usually with guns)

I remember a Simpson's episode when Marge becomes a cop. There is a guy who is twitching a lot and yells at Wiggum :"Forget all that..When do we get the freakin' guns!"

Wiggum responds :"Hey, you don't get a gun 'till you tell us your name!"

Later

Pete

Candy
2005-May-10, 05:48 PM
Ewwww, I mistakenly read this thread thinking it was about Michael Caine.

Makgraf
2005-May-10, 07:02 PM
F911 was nowhere as good as Bowling for Columbine. I'm talking enjoymentwise, not informationwise, because neither are particularly honest. I saw Micheal Moore speak at the University of Toronto and he was very funny not just with delivery of a planned speach but also the off-the-cuff stuff (To shut up a heckler at the beginning he started singing the national antheme. Then when done he started singing it in French but with made-up French sounding words). Moore's relative abscene in F911 is missed and when he is there, he's just not as funny. He is too angry and his anger has destroyed his film.

Both films contain an interesting duality, they both have two parallel and contradictory theses. Bowling for Columbine has its gun issue and then the "culture of fear" as explinations. These rival theses snipe at each other throughout the film: The culture of fear argument points out how other countries also have high gun levels, the gun argument rebuts that these other countries have violent video games and movies as well.

For F911 the theses are even more estranged. The first part of the film shows how the Saudis are running the government. The second part shows that the Bushies are obsessed with invading Iraq to appease big corporations. Of course these two cut against each other. If the Saudis were really in charge then Iraq wouldn't have been touched. This distinction tends to be lost on some people, I shudder to think about how many people left the movie convinced that Bush invaded Iraq so the Saudis could build a pipeline through it.

As for good sites debunking Moore, 59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm) is a good one. It's not neutral but it's "not a diatribe from the other extreme" (In the opening section the authors say "Well there are lies from the Bush administration which should concern everyone" and then plugs two books attacking the Bush administration from a fact-based perspective). They also have Moore's response to any of their points on their site.

Crazieman
2005-May-10, 07:14 PM
As much as a intensely dislike Michael Moore, this thread has no direction to go other than political.

Disinfo Agent
2005-May-10, 07:37 PM
If the Saudis were really in charge then Iraq wouldn't have been touched.
Why not?

SKY
2005-May-10, 07:40 PM
So who's got a link to the better of the Moore debunking sites? I'm looking for something nuetral & objective - not a diatribe from the other extreme. In other words - NO LIMBAUGH or his wannabees.

Here (http://mooreexposed.com/bfc.html) is a rebuttal for Bowling for Columbine written by David Hardy. David Hardy is hardly nuetral towards Michael Moore, but his analysis of BFC is very detailed and he also provides support for his claims.

There is another (albiet anti-Michael Moore) website called www.Bowlingfortruth.com that I personally think gives a better rebuttle towards BFC and F911. It is more of a conservative site, but it's rebuttals of Moore's work are very detailed, and he doesn't sit there and just diatribe to get his point across. Whether you like it or not, it is a very entertaining read. It also has reactions from various people who were filmed in BFC, who were mislead by Michael Moore, in particular Trey Parker and Matt Stone, creators of South Park, who immediatly after their interview, Moore shows the "History of America" clip (which was in South Park fashion). Parker and Stone took that as Moore trying to make them out to be the ones who made the clip (which they did not). This prompted Moores unflattering likeness in "Team America: World Police" written by Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

The Bowling for Truth website is down for now while they switch hosts, but if you get a change to check it out when it comes back up, the owner of the site actually gives very good support for his rebuttals including links to where he got his evidence, something I have not seen Moore do yet.

farmerjumperdon
2005-May-10, 08:04 PM
Thanks for the links, much appreciated.

Makgraf
2005-May-10, 11:51 PM
If the Saudis were really in charge then Iraq wouldn't have been touched.
Why not?
Well because the Saudi government was against the war. Saudi (i.e. the House of Saud) controlled media and mosques have been spewing out hatred against the war, even to the point of sanctioning attacks against Americans in Iraq.

Why? Well the Saudi population is pretty set against it (ever since the crusades that region seems pretty touchy about the whole "invaision" thing). And while Saudi Arabia is certainly not a democracy if their people get mad enough at them they'll all be "swinging from the nearest lamp-post" as Ken Livingston put it. The war stirred up a lot of anti-Americanism in the mideast and the Saudis are very afraid that some of that anger could cause their regime to fall. That's not even mentioning the danger of having a Shia dominated country to their north. There are Shia in Saudi Arabia who might be... inspired to rise up in such situations. Plus if the longterm neocon fantasy of a democratic middle east comes about the Saudi royal family is kinda out of a job.

Ilya
2005-May-11, 01:35 AM
So who's got a link to the better of the Moore debunking sites? I'm looking for something nuetral & objective - not a diatribe from the other extreme. In other words - NO LIMBAUGH or his wannabees.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Warning: this website is very long. It lists 59 distortions in F911 -- mostly lies by omission and by presenting things out of context, but also some outright falsehoods.

papageno
2005-May-11, 10:09 AM
Both films contain an interesting duality, they both have two parallel and contradictory theses. Bowling for Columbine has its gun issue and then the "culture of fear" as explinations. These rival theses snipe at each other throughout the film: The culture of fear argument points out how other countries also have high gun levels, the gun argument rebuts that these other countries have violent video games and movies as well.
I thought the point was that, despite other countries have similar gun levels (Canada), and similar violent pasts and violent games and movies, they do not have as many dead because they do not have the same culture of fear as the U.S.
Basically, "Americans shoot each other because they are afraid, not because there are many guns".




It also has reactions from various people who were filmed in BFC, who were mislead by Michael Moore, in particular Trey Parker and Matt Stone, creators of South Park, who immediatly after their interview, Moore shows the "History of America" clip (which was in South Park fashion). Parker and Stone took that as Moore trying to make them out to be the ones who made the clip (which they did not).

:o That was misleading!

Asian-American
2005-May-11, 11:31 AM
I liked his movie on 9-11, it confirmed what I had already learned through other sources, such as http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html by Pat Buchanan and http://www.antiwar.com/

But, I don't like his anti-guns view: I love the Second Amendment. Hell, I think people should be allowed to own automatic machine guns and granades!

Captain Kidd
2005-May-11, 11:43 AM
Ah yes, the Jews are behind everything. Now it all makes sense.

MrObvious
2005-May-11, 12:04 PM
Ah yes, the Jews are behind everything. Now it all makes sense.

I was wondering what you were refering to until I clicked on A-A's links.
Now I wish I didn't know....

SKY
2005-May-11, 05:47 PM
It also has reactions from various people who were filmed in BFC, who were mislead by Michael Moore, in particular Trey Parker and Matt Stone, creators of South Park, who immediatly after their interview, Moore shows the "History of America" clip (which was in South Park fashion). Parker and Stone took that as Moore trying to make them out to be the ones who made the clip (which they did not).

:o That was misleading!

They took it as Moore misleading the audience into thinking that they created the cartoon that Moore showed in his movie (the cartoon being full of...well, errors being the kindest word). They didn't want to be associated with the cartoon, but the way Moore has a clip of them being interviewed, then going directly to the cartoon (made in their style), they felt he made it seem (albeit, without saying so directly) like they were the creators of the cartoon. There are others interviewed on that site that felt they were directly mislead by Moore, but like I said, you'd have to wait for the site to come back up to read there stories.

The only one I remember off hand was a woman who lost her child in the Columbine shootings was interviewed by Moore for the movie, and was told that the families of the victims were going to get an advance screening of the film when it was done. The families were up for it...until they found out that Moore was going to charge them for admission. She then said that not many of the families felt the same about him after that.