Michael Moore?

A mellow place for Bobcats to discuss topics free of political posturing

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

WolfPtCat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 4:28 pm
Location: Parker, CO

Michael Moore?

Post by WolfPtCat » Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:01 pm

What do you guys think of Michael Moore? It seems like he takes a pretty strong anti-US position ( basically giving all of our enemies PR ammunition). If he tried this in any other country, he'd get strung up. I think he should take a big wide look around, be thankful.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:15 pm

I haven't seen his newest film, so I really can't opine too much on it. It sounds like it is mostly just a rehashing of old anti-Bush conspiracy theories, so there probably isn't that much substance to it (and the fact that the French loved it doesn't really sway me, either).

Is he anti-US in your opinion, or just anti-Bush? There is a huge difference. Our country certainly isn't perfect, and our history is littered with examples of us screwing up and killing lots of innocent people in not-so-noble campaigns of various kinds, so speaking out against our foreign policy isn't really anti-American as much as it is anti-(whoever is directing the policies).

Of course, when people almost appear to be cheering for the terrorists of the world to win against us (generally so their political party has more ammunition with which to win an election), then I think people are really crossing a dangerous line.

My far from brave view on the current state of affairs is that I am far from happy with the way things have worked out so far with Iraq, but at the same time, I hope things improve and that things stabilize there and that Iraq eventually turns into a civil democratic nation. I am critical of past decisions and actions, but still have some degree of faith that somebody knows what they are doing going forward and that we can make good things happen.



User avatar
Bleedinbluengold
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3427
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
Location: Belly of the Beast

Post by Bleedinbluengold » Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:44 am

He's just anit-conservative. If there were a movie maker that characterized the liberals the same as Moore does the conservatives, he'd be labeled mean-spirited.

I like Moore's movies - they make me laugh. But I don't take him or his politics too seriously.

Look at this way - he's good balance for Rush Limbaugh.



geogfather
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:16 pm

Post by geogfather » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:26 pm

I don't think you can take his politics to seriously. He is Very anti conservative, and even more so anti bush.

Moore is a walking contradiction. He tries to pass himelf off as a everyday american living in Flint Michigan, Meanwhile he is uber wealty and lives in manhattens upper east side right next to central park.

He claims to hate huge corporations, yet has made millions working for them. My personal favorite was when he claimed he would not wear nike shoes because of their use of child labor and the like. Instead he was going to Wear New Balance. ( while new Balance does have some factories in the US, they also use the very same factories that nike uses in the far east)

The Guy Hates guns, yet is a member in the NRA, although I would venture to guess the only reason he joined was for the purpose of Bowling for columbine.

If you have seen a moore film you know he interviews, or atleast tries to, alot of prominant people who he disagrees with. He went as far as to call the people who work for those prominant people "the good germans"!

He has been caught in lies lots of times. Most recently he claimed to have just found out about Disney not allowing miramax to distribute F911, however when asked about it later he admitted to finding out nearly a year ago, long before the movie was even close to being ready. He just chose not to do anything about it knowing that it would cause a stir if news came out right before the movie was originally scheduled for release.

He has also claimed to interview many people who have stated time and time again, that they have never met nor talked with micheal moore.

After winning the oscar for columbine, he talked about how important the award was becasue his movie was a documentary of truth, he was questioned on the movie in the folowing weeks and when a ? came up about how true it was, he said "its a comedy and needs to be entertainment"

Also in Bowling, he implies that a young girl was killed in a school shooting becasue her mom was too busy with work thanks to a new law that forced people on welfare to work and try to get off of the program.

In the new movie coming out (I havent seen it yet but this is my understanding of it from the reviews I have read), Fairenheit 911, he talks at length about how the bush family and the bin laden family are "friends". He is absolutly right in that regard. In fact every president in the past 30 years has been "friends" with the bin laden family. What he appearently doesn't point out is that Bin Ladens father disowned Osama years ago. the movie also states teh Osama is Saudi, while he was born in Saudi Arabia, he has much more in common with Yemin as his fater was yemini. I beilive his mother was syrian, but she could possibly be jordanian, I cant remember of the top of my head. If you were to ask Osama, he would claim to be Yemini. (Although he would probably claim to be a muslim first and foremost) I would like to think a documentary would at least be factual.

Now let it be said that I am not a republican out to bash Moore, I am in fact a democrat, although more conservative than liberal. Does moore actually believe what he talks about? Probably, but I think he might also be the classic example of the kid in high school who wears an anti government t-shirt not because he agrees witht he statement made, but simply becasue he wants to get a reaction.

Thats my two cents anyways.
Last edited by geogfather on Sat Jun 26, 2004 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Mon Jun 07, 2004 9:42 pm

geogfather: Great post -- you brought a big bag of knowledge to the table for us. I don't know near as much about MM's misstatements and like as you do, but you touched on one point that I thought was the worst part of "Bowling," and that was the story about the little boy whose mother was in a welfare to work program. The kid stayed with an uncle while the Mom worked for a Dick Clark's restaurant, and the nice uncle left a handgun sitting around. The kid took it to school and kills a little girl with it, and MM's reaction is to blame the system for getting the mother a job, and then tries to ambush Dick Clark himself for "exploiting" welfare recipients by giving them jobs (which presumably has a high correlation to their children killing other children, I guess). That was a complete hack job, especially since he never really asked any questions about the burden of responsibility of the uncle -- I guess it wasn't his fault that he left a gun out for a six year old to play with.

Outside of that, though, I thought Bowling was a pretty good and entertaining movie, and I thought it was particularly ironic when MM came out and endorsed Wesley Clarke for President, when part of the premise of Bowling was that the operation in Serbia was a reflection of why our society was so violent. He won back my affection when he interviewed Marilyn Manson, who was probably the most articulate and (almost undoubtably) intelligent person in the entire film.

It would be fun to have MM's job, though. You can frame any discussion any way you want to, rage against the machine in any way you like, and have just enough talent to be able to entertain enough people (and preach to the choir just enough) that you can make lots of money doing it. I would love that job. If only I had talent....

For a more intellectually honest approach to the same kind of entertainment, check out "Bulls***" (it's the name of a show, so I don't know if I should edit myself on that or not) on Showtime with Penn and Teller. They do the same sort of thing with even more force, but from a decidedly Libertarian point of view and even more comedy. Pretty good stuff.
Last edited by SonomaCat on Mon Jun 07, 2004 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.



geogfather
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:16 pm

Post by geogfather » Tue Jun 08, 2004 12:31 am

BAC,

I too noticed the lack of concern over the fact that a gun had been left out for a child to use. To me that is a huge problem in and of itself. A person leaves a gun out like that and all the unemplyment and welfare checks in the world arent going to stop an "accident" from happening.

Should there be gun control, in my opinion yeah sure to a certain extent. I think it is nuts that a person cant wait 5 days to buy a handgun. That is itself should be a major warning sign. Hunting riffles and the like are a little different story, although with the ammount of planning that goes into most hunting trips, I would think a person could plan ahead to buy a freaking .243. As for asault weapons, most people I know dont hunt with an automatic M-16, and those that do are using them to track down terrorists on foriegn soil. (Wow I got a little of topic there. Sorry)

As for the movie itself, I too found it entertaining, although at some times it wwas frustrating to see his sensationalism. (If I were Wesley Clark, who was one of my favorite candidates, and the one who I though was actually the strongest democrat) I would not want an endorsement from more. While Moore certainly has his supporters, he has a rather large contigent that think he is plain crazy. (i dont think he is crazy, just different)

I agree, the interview with marilyn manson was great. People can say what they want about the man, but he isn nothing if not intellegent. He is very well spoken and is always interesting to listen to.


GOing back to something WolfPoint said earlier about being thankful for where you live: My brother and I were just talking about that the other day. There are almost 6.5 billion people on this planet with about 300 million of the living in the united states. My math probably isnt perfect, but I think that is about 5 percent of the world poulation living in the US. We were wathing the news of antoher terrorist bombing in the middle east the other night and my brother just looked at me and said, "damn man, of all the places in the planet we could have been born, we were pretty f***** lucky to end up where we did." We all complain about things that affect our lives in one way or another, and sure every place has problems, be them local state, national, or global. But when you really sit down and think about who we are and where we live, i dont think we ever fully understand just how lucky we are. a good example is the previous presidential election. an event like that in 75 percent of the worlds countries would spark a violent uprising or overthrow. Yet, for over 200 years this great experiment of a republic, has somehow managed to remain one of the most stable intstituions in the world. Its amazing to think about.
( OK, Im getting of track again. sorry)


As for Iraq, just to again throw my two cents in :) alot of people are calling for us to just up and leave. Unfortuanatly things dont work that way in that country. While this is sad to say, Saddam Husein was the one stabalizing force in that county. HE certainly wasnt a good force, but he was stabalizing none the less. Pull out the stabalizing factor and of course there are gonna be problems, no matter how fast you get a new leader in. There are three distinct groups residing in Iraq with the kurds in the far north, the sunnis in the south and the shia in the central. Its hard enough to get three individuals with different opinons to compromise on something, now try to get three entire groups of people to do it. the issue is complicated even more by the fact that one group, the kurds, want their own state. With that statehood issue becoming even more complicated by the fact that the kurds do not trust the United States one bit, and well they shouldn't as we promised to help them oust saddam in exchange for ther help in the first gulf war, and then bailed on them and left them to be slaughtered by Hussein. Am I happy with the way things are going in Iraq? No, but I expected it, I do feel though that while things are hectic right now, the world will be a safer place with Hussein out of power. Anyways, a person could go on for hours about all of this iraq stuff so since I am so far away from the original purpose of the post I will stop here and say on with the micheal moore discussion.


Sorry if I got to far off topic, this stuff just interests me.
Last edited by geogfather on Tue Jun 08, 2004 12:32 am, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
Bleedinbluengold
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3427
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
Location: Belly of the Beast

Post by Bleedinbluengold » Tue Jun 08, 2004 12:16 pm

Interesting info, geogfather. A lot of what you stated made me think of Oliver Stone. Each director gets a topic that interests people, and then they make it even more interesting. If nothing else, a person comes away from Moore's and Stone's movies thinking about "things." And propbably, their movies are the ones you don't really forget. That's a good movie-maker.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:25 pm

Very interesting read on-topic:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

I don't get the impression that Hitchens is a big fan of MM.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Mon Jun 21, 2004 6:17 pm




thecitygriz
BobcatNation Redshirt
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:23 pm

Post by thecitygriz » Sat Jun 26, 2004 9:32 am

Amusing that all of you have such strong opinions about Farenheit 911 when not one of you has actually...seen it! An apt metaphor for a war that so many Americans have supported so fervently with such little knowledge of what's going on over there or the ways the men who took us into this war are benefitting so handsomely from it. One of many poignant moments in this film comes when a soldier over there states that his wages are one fourth of that of a truck driver for Halliburton, while every day he is putting his life on the line to protect that driver from Halliburton!

To all you bleeding-ulcer conservatives, I would ask you two questions: Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh? And do you believe in "fair and balanced" reporting? If you answer "yes" to both questions, then you oughta have a look at this film, because Michael Moore pretty much balances out Rush Limbaugh. It's undeniably a riveting film, and Moore is just as good as his craft as Limbaugh is at his.

As for Christopher Hitchens, what a windbag! His definition of good writing must be the correct use of as many big words as possible. Let me ask...have any of you ever made it all the way through a Hitchens article? Be honest now!



geogfather
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:16 pm

Post by geogfather » Sat Jun 26, 2004 1:04 pm

thecitygriz wrote:Amusing that all of you have such strong opinions about Farenheit 911 when not one of you has actually...seen it! An apt metaphor for a war that so many Americans have supported so fervently with such little knowledge of what's going on over there or the ways the men who took us into this war are benefitting so handsomely from it. One of many poignant moments in this film comes when a soldier over there states that his wages are one fourth of that of a truck driver for Halliburton, while every day he is putting his life on the line to protect that driver from Halliburton!

To all you bleeding-ulcer conservatives, I would ask you two questions: Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh? And do you believe in "fair and balanced" reporting? If you answer "yes" to both questions, then you oughta have a look at this film, because Michael Moore pretty much balances out Rush Limbaugh. It's undeniably a riveting film, and Moore is just as good as his craft as Limbaugh is at his.
I think people's opinions are not so much anti-movie as they are anti-Moore. Moore has been caught multiple times stretching the truth, and some times making things up. The thing with Moore is, most of what he says isnt totally untrue, he just twists things arround and doesn't give the entire story. I will go to this movie nex week, as I have company in town all weekend, but when I do I will come back with my review of this movie. I can already tell you what my biggest fear will be about it. That people who vote will use this movie as the base for thier knowledge on the issues. I'm not saying people who do that are stupid, because I'm sure Moore will raise some good points that will be well worth consideration. What makes me nervous is that those people will just take what he says as absolute truth. I've seen it happen with my students when they watched "Bowling".

The moment about the soldier being paid little in comparison to Haliburton: Does Moore say who he thinks is at fault for this? This is one of those nature of the beast things. It comes with a free market economy. Big corporations can afford to pay that. Its unfortunate that our govt cant, but if every soldier was making 100K a year, we really couldnt afford our military. The house and senate struggle over this issue as well. When you become a soldier you dont do it to get rich. It's kind of like teaching in that respect. You do it to help people. And in the long term, this will help people.

As for Halliburton itself, them being in the middle east is nothing new. They have been there for decades, long before either of the Bush's or Cheney were in office. Halliburton is the largets oil services company in the world. They are also the most effecient. Seeing them get a contract for the area really shouldnt be that big of a surprise. Turn the tables for a moment and think of it like this. Lockheed-martin turns in a bid to produce fighter jets. Well, the vice presdent at the time happens to be a former member of the board at the company. Are you instantly going to turn them down for the bid because of that? No of course not, because Lockheed can do things cheaper and at a higher rate of safety. Individual companies profit from war in this country. That has been the case through out the history of the free market economy.

As for being fair and ballanced: Moore may balance out Rush, but I certainly wouldnt use either of them as resource for knowledge on politics. And fair? Well Moore himself said on TV last night when asked if his was a fair assesment, "No, not at all. This is an op/ed piece so i didnt have to be."

I will say this though, I am greatful that I live in a country where a movie like this can be made and shown without bloodshed and censorship. And those political groups who were trying to stop in from being shown should be ashamed of themselves. (I dont include Disney in this because they simply didnt want it shown by themselves. Had they not wanted it shown at all, they could have tied it up in court for a long time.)

One More thing, and this is just a pet peave of mine. Why can't Moore make himself look decent for a freaking interview?! It drives me nuts when he goes on tv and trashes the whitehouse and government in general while looking like a fat blob in jeans and an untucked shirt, old black jacket thrown on at the ast minute, with whirwind of hair smashed under his basball hat. For god sakes, at least put on a shirt and tie or something. I dont mind one bit that he goes on TV and trashes the president, but the I think that the institutuon of the presidency, no matter what one thinks about the person holding at the time is something that deserves utmost respect, even if its just an interview about it. Sorry, that has been one of those stupid things that has been bothering me for a couple days.

Anyways, I'll come back in a few day after I see the movie.
Till then,
Cheers



thecitygriz
BobcatNation Redshirt
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:23 pm

Post by thecitygriz » Sat Jun 26, 2004 3:47 pm

geogfather: Glad you're going to see the movie. I suspect Moore has researched his facts well. The real craft of film comes in the editing--the omissions, the juxtapositions--and I suspect this is where Moore will take the most heat...Bush mugging for his aides before going on TV to announce the war; Bush decrying the terrorists before turning to tee off for a round of golf; our soldiers pretty much terrorizing an Iraqui family in the middle of the night before a cut to a military spokesman saying our goal was "to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqui people." Some will call these cheap shots. I say, there are no insignificant gestures.

One note of caution. I think conservatives have to be very careful of THEIR facts and THEIR truthfulness in rebutting Moore. As an example, Joe Scarborough the other night was excoriating a Democrat about the claim that the Bin Laden family was flown out of the country shortly after 9/11. Scarborough claimed this decision was made not by George Bush, but by "your guy, Richard Clarke." In fact, I recall vividly Clarke's testimony on this point before the 9/11 commission, and he said that while the request did come to him, it was not the sort of decision for him to make, and he passed it up. Asked then who approved it, he said, "I don't know. But I can guess: Either the F.B.I. or The White House."

One other small point: Moore lives on the Upper West Side, not the Upper East Side. Still pricey real estate, but any New Yorker understands the difference.

And, hey, BAC, you seen it yet? Weigh in, my man!
Last edited by thecitygriz on Sat Jun 26, 2004 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.



geogfather
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:16 pm

Post by geogfather » Sat Jun 26, 2004 8:04 pm

thecitygriz wrote:geogfather: Glad you're going to see the movie. I suspect Moore has One note of caution. I think conservatives have to be very careful of THEIR facts and THEIR truthfulness in rebutting Moore. As an example, Joe Scarborough the other night was excoriating a Democrat about the claim that the Bin Laden family was flown out of the country shortly after 9/11. Scarborough claimed this decision was made not by George Bush, but by "your guy, Richard Clarke." In fact, I recall vividly Clarke's testimony on this point before the 9/11 commission, and he said that while the request did come to him, it was not the sort of decision for him to make, and he passed it up. Asked then who approved it, he said, "I don't know. But I can guess: Either the F.B.I. or The White House."
My bad on the east west mix up. One quick note before I get going. Moore's own website states that Clarke approved the flights. I' cut and paste the paragraph, but you can find it at michaelmoore.com.

"Former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has testified that he approved these flights, stating that "it was a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House." Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003. "

Thats just his website though and I am not saying at all that some conservatives dont need to be careful in thier attempted fact checks.



User avatar
Bleedinbluengold
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3427
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
Location: Belly of the Beast

Post by Bleedinbluengold » Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:46 pm

I saw an interview with Moore, geogfather, and I don't know if it was the same one you saw, or not, but I concur, he did say that the movie was an editorial.

Thus, it stands to reason that if a person is going to make an editorial movie, they would certainly twist the facts in his/her favor in order to make the intended point. Moore does this in spades. Especially the marketing part - heck, if he released his movie during the NFL regular season, it probably would have only grossed 2 million dollars, not 20 million.

Both Limbaugh and Moore can cause a person to think about certain important issues - but you can also have those same experiences by watching the X-Files or Seinfeld, or reading Rolling Stone.

Thinking about stuff is good.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:16 pm

I haven't had a chance to see the film yet, but I'm sure I will. It seems like I've read so much about it already that the film itself will be a bit anticlimatic.

An interesting project that I came across when reading about the film relates to this site:

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

I would love to see that film completed, although the name is stupid (it should be "Michael and Me", obviously). I love the idea of a self-promoting documentarian chasing around a self-promoting documentarian and doing to him what he had done to everyone else.

When I finally see the film, I'll be sure to post my review.

Much higher on my list right now is to see the Metallica film "Some Kind of Monster." I saw the trailer for that last weekend when I was at "Napolean Dynamite" (a surprisingly good film, considering its wholesomeness and the fact that it was made almost entirely by BYU people -- not the usual suspects in the indie film world). I got goosebumps from the trailer, so I'm hoping the real thing doesn't let me down. That's a big screen must, whereas "911" probably works just as well for me on DVD, absent the timeliness factor for public debate purposes.



User avatar
Bleedinbluengold
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3427
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
Location: Belly of the Beast

Post by Bleedinbluengold » Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:49 pm

Who was it a few years ago that followed the 60-minute cameras around with their own camera during filming of the interview? Pretty much showed how 60-minutes isn't has factual as the show's producers would have us believe.

By Moore's own admission, he takes great liberties where the First Amendment is concerned.



thecitygriz
BobcatNation Redshirt
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:23 pm

Post by thecitygriz » Thu Jul 01, 2004 11:56 pm

Gotta laugh a bit at you guys. Seventeen posts now on this thread, most of them critical of Michael Moore, and not one of you has seen the film! Doesn't such intellectual lethargy fly in the face of the sort of inquisitive research on which Montana State's vaunted educational reputation rests? Or are you intellectual giants all out watching Spider-Man?

(Oh...I'd direct these same comments at my cohorts over on the Griz Board but we are experiencing...ahhh...engineering difficulties.)



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Fri Jul 02, 2004 12:27 am

City: Although, you have to admit, not many posters (none?) have opined on the newest film, so it's not really relevant if they have seen it or not. People could easily have opinions on Moore based on what they know outside of his latest film. If someone had given their opinions of "911" without seeing it, then you would have a pretty healthy gripe.

Now if you want to talk about a film that I personally DID hold strong opinions about without paying the money to see, it was "The Passion." I'm still pretty comfortable with my intellectual lethargy on that call.

I have read that Spider Man is actually excellent (although it ironically has less marketing effort behind it than 911 -- if only Peter Parker's spidey senses had a myopic political bent)... I guess the big studios get one right every so often. I'll probably see that one eventually as well. After the Metallica film, of course. We have to have priorities.



thecitygriz
BobcatNation Redshirt
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 9:23 pm

Post by thecitygriz » Fri Jul 02, 2004 5:48 am

Bac: I know you had a hand in building this website so let me congratulate you on the idea of a separate forum where we political junkies can vent on topics other than sports. Much appreciated.

You say, "...not many posters (none?) have opined on the newest film..." but that's harldy the spirit of the this thread! It starts by somebody saying that Moore "gives the enemies PR ammunition," goes into your theory that this film is a "re-hashing of old anti-Bush conspiracy theories," and provides several links to those who don't like Moore or Fahrenheit 911. And yet...not one person here has seen the film. How can we talk about it if nobody has seen it! C'mon!

Let me tell you that no number of anti-Moore links and no amount of fact-critiquing can deny the overall power of this film. If anybody here or anywhere else doesn't want to see this film that is of course their right. But I think it is intellectually dishonest to comment on it in a public forum if you haven't seen it. It smacks of writing about novels that you only know from Cliff notes, or of letting somebody else write a term paper for you. Isn't one main goal of education to encourage original thinking?
Last edited by thecitygriz on Fri Jul 02, 2004 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:20 am

city: I know what you're saying, but I do think that it is possible to have opinions about Moore while not seeing his new film first-hand.

I'll refer back to "The Passion" example. Do we need to contribute $10 to the Mel Gibson "The Catholic Church is too damn liberal and the holocaust didn't happen" church fund in order to form the opinion that we don't want to see said film?

I personally know enough about Moore's methods of filmmaking and his personal biases that I don't feel an urgent need to see the film. I'll see it eventually, probably on DVD (which is so much easier, schedule-wise), but for now I simply have a lot of other movies that I would find more entertaining.

Of course, I wouldn't want to sit out any discussion of Moore, or stop reading competing movie reviews (the spectrum I've seen so far is The Chronicle to Hitchens). After reading about 6 of them, you can pretty much get the gist of what the movie holds, which is a similar method of filmmaking to "Bowling" and "Roger and Me," but on a new topic.

The film is, of course, very powerful (especially when preaching to the choir) and very successful in the box office (due to brilliant marketing).

Another negative about watching the film here is that virtually everybody is so extreme in the "anti-Bush" camp (many for idealistic reasons, many for fashion/social acceptance) that I think the theaters would be more like pep rallies than civil places to watch and absorb the movie. One of my biggest annoyances are people making lots of noise during a movie, especially applause (it's a movie, people, the filmmaker can't hear you, and the rest of us don't care whether you agreed with that scene!). That makes the DVD route all the more appealing.

Cripes, I have to get to work. I slept too late this morning.



Post Reply