Michael Moore: good or bad? - Page 3

.BatteryPoison. · 07-09-2004, 03:59 AM

You're right, Tom...
as long as we're being shown a documentary through a camera lense, then there's always stuff that's left out of frame that we're not seeing. They're showing us what they want to. I think what I really wanted to touch on with the separation between true documentaries and Moore's stuff, is the fact that true documentaries present a story with the facts in an unbiased manner. There are still several film makers who can educate us on issues and events from a historian's aspect, which is, to show us the facts and let us decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. Moore doesn't do that, obviously. He shoves what he thinks is right and wrong down his audience's throat.

The media has rarely ever presented the news in an unbiased manner, like you said. There's always some political influence thats even driving them to take interest in the story. Hence why you always hear stuff like "Blah blah blah was changed because of our CBS report on yadda yadda yadda last week." Alot of the stuff on the History channel leans much more towards true documentaries by giving us the facts without bias fitting it's ugly self into the programs.

07-10-2004, 12:19 AM

"opinions are like assholes; everyone has one and they all stink."

-I have no idea who said it. if you do, give the credit....

Loy · 07-10-2004, 06:18 AM

.batterypoison.-Not to take away from your opinion on Moore's film, but I'd like to point out one of the big arguments in film circles in regards to documentaries.

The thing is, while people would like to believe that documentaries should be unbiased, they never are. For one thing, the very process of film-making makes this impossible. You point your camera in one direction at one moment, and you'll miss out on anything else happening at that very moment. The cameraperson decides what is to enter the frame. Along with this is the editing process. Here, the editor decides what images are to presented, and how they're to be presented. These are the two main points of contention, but there are many little details (soundtrack work, for example) which could influence how the audience is to view what they're seeing. So in the end, what we see isn't an unbiased view of a subject, but an interpretation of said subject.

Now, a lot of film-makers are more adept at hiding their biases than others are, but this doesn't mean that they aren't there. For example, Errol Morris felt that Randall Adams was wrongfully convicted and put on death row. So "The Thin Blue Line" presented the facts of the case in a way that would posit this, while not endowing other views with the same conviction. This isn't to say that Randall Adams was guilty, or to say that Morris's convictions were wrong. I'm glad that Adams was released (and I think "Thin Blue Line" stands as the only film to guarantee the release of a prisoner, ever), but imagine how different the film would've been if, say, George Bush (who supports the death penalty) had made it.

In the end, what really differentiates Moore from other documentarians is that he makes no effort in hiding his biases.

black_fairy · 07-10-2004, 09:58 AM

The only Michael Moore's work that I've seen is Bowling For Columbine, and I liked so much.
I think he's a brave person because he has stood up to all his country and he has defended what he thinks.

ohthefuckwell · 08-04-2004, 12:41 AM

i ran across this, thought it was interesting....not to mention kind of funny.

michael moore is a big fat stupid white man by daivd t. hardy & jason clarke

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com

Someone was bound to go after Michael Moore eventually and this book holds nothing back. An immensely popular figure to political left-wingers, Michael Moore presents himself as a regular working-class guy in a baseball cap with the courage to take some rich and powerful folks to task for their corrupt and deceitful ways. David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke say this populist, muckraker image is pure whitewash. Believing that this charade has gone on for too long, and done too much damage to the U.S., they have written this book to expose Moore as narcissistic and irresponsible and his body of work "as manipulative as totalitarian propaganda." To prove their point, they pick apart Moore's books and movies to illustrate how he is consistently manipulative, dishonest, and, at times, simply absurd. They show how he altered the timeline of Roger and Me in order to unfairly blame things on General Motors that happened before their layoffs, not as a result of them. Regarding Bowling for Columbine, the authors explain how he took quotes out of context and reassembled them to give the impression that people made speeches they did not make---most famously his interview with Charlton Heston, then president of the NRA. They also illustrate how Moore manipulated statistics in his books Dude, Where’s My Country and Stupid White Men to fit his theories, making some truly outrageous claims in the process. The authors have certainly done their homework, and it's impossible to view Moore's work the same way after reading this book. "How does a man with so many contradictions manage to blind his enormous trove of followers to how hypocritical he really is? How does he get away with it?" they ask. If the authors have their way, he won't much longer. Now that Moore has joined the ranks of the rich and powerful, Hardy and Clarke have engaged in bit of muckraking of their own.

Gothic_wolf_demon · 08-04-2004, 02:04 AM

Micheal moore sucks

WolfMoon · 09-02-2004, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gothic_wolf_demon

Micheal moore sucks

I second that!His film seems like he's trying way too hard to be convincing.I don't see how people can see him as anyting but a moron.He doesn't appeal to my common sense.

Sandmanhero · 09-02-2004, 02:40 PM

Seems to be the general consensus that everyone hate michael moore becuase he's trying to hawk his movie as a documentary, etc.

Yes, he is against bush, but in his film 9/11, he brings up alot more then just opinions of bush. he backs them with facts. You can't deny Bushs involment with oil, his history of business. his was records, etc. leaving out everything in the movie that was opinion, alot, i know, tell me how you can ignore the facts?

Jane13 · 09-02-2004, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edible_eye

guilty as charged, jane.
guilty as charged.

- mark

I want to appologize now. I feel guilty... I pointed out little mistakes before I found out you were really cool. You haven't posted in a while, but it needed to be said.

Sandmanhero · 09-02-2004, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xnguela

I have a HUGE problem with Michael Moore, to the point where I can't even bear to see/hear his name...
But it has nothing to do with anything mentioned so far...
My brother, age 15, has decided to accept anything & everything Michael Moore says as gospel. If Michael Moore said that Bush shat nuclear weapons, and we were using Bush-shit to bomb Iraq, my brother would demand that we confiscate all of our president's feces and destroy it. He doesn't even question what he's told! So yes, I hate Michael Moore, but only because he turned my brother into a mindless drone. He told my brother (through his movies, and in my brother's perception) that the government, and everything else in his adolescent life, lies, and the only truth-teller is him, Michael Moore.
There is such a thing as TOO extreme...

that's the same reason i hate Organized religion! they turned my sister into a puppet. I miss my sister. She used to be so smart when she thought for herself...but i digress

I certainly don't believe in taking what michael moore says as truth. he's definitly biased. But i just want to know about the facts.

Soul_Immortal · 09-02-2004, 03:11 PM

Perhaps I'm a little to passive and will just say that Farenheit 9/11 is a movie he did. Haven't seen it, or Passion of the Christ yet. And it seems both have a good amount of controversy. Might not see either, but who knows. I might be switching channels late one night,....

*Soul*

Jane13 · 09-04-2004, 01:34 PM

I don't have cable, either. MY mom wants to get it, but I think it would be just another 300 channels of nothing good to watch. I'm sorry about your brother, X. Like I've said before, I think "Roger and Me" was his best film. He actually delivered information and a bit of humor without beig so damn cocky and self-riteous.

WolfMoon · 09-04-2004, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandmanhero

Seems to be the general consensus that everyone hate michael moore becuase he's trying to hawk his movie as a documentary, etc.

Yes, he is against bush, but in his film 9/11, he brings up alot more then just opinions of bush. he backs them with facts. You can't deny Bushs involment with oil, his history of business. his was records, etc. leaving out everything in the movie that was opinion, alot, i know, tell me how you can ignore the facts?

Sure, you can use facts to prove anything that's remotely true.

But, seriously you can't take most of his movie seriously.He takes things out of context and shows things how he wants you to see them not how they really are.So what's the difference between him and any other politician?

Soul_Immortal · 09-04-2004, 04:02 PM

Cable? Putting words in my mouth much here?

Never said I had cable. 2nd level of cable here is 48 channels of nothing but TBS, SciFi and Nickelodeon. 3rd level being Digital.

Lemme rephrase what I said.....

I might be switching the few channels we CAN AFFORD late one night, and TBS might have a showing of......

*Soul*

Jane13 · 09-04-2004, 04:48 PM

sorry :oops: I like your signature, soul.

Soul_Immortal · 09-04-2004, 09:08 PM

NO!!! Haha Jane I was just bein sarcastic

Pwease don't wun away...:-(

Thanks! Hubby mentioned needing something for his EQ game, something about a coffin and poof it entered my head. :P

TeapotScar · 09-10-2004, 01:39 PM

Personally, I like Michael Moore... his passion for politics reminds me of when my mother started hysterically crying when it was clear Bush was going to take office in 2001. Obviously, he has his faults, but his heart is in the right place and that's more than I can say for our current president...

On an exciting note- HE'S COMING TO MY COLLEGE THIS MONDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P

edible_eye · 09-17-2004, 06:00 AM

jane -

i came to browse and have to say - i was really touched by your apology to me, even though it wasn't necessary. way back when, i took your response as a tongue-in-cheek slap on the wrist for the way i mangle basic and first-learned writing rules, which of course just made me smile. tstone did the same at some point and to tell the truth, just about everywhere i post i'm told i need to clean it up cuz it's not the way writers write.

anyway, that's not why i'm posting now. i just wanted to say - "Thanks. That was really nice of you. Thoughtful, too." - and to top it off, i wrote it correctly. hope all is well with you.

- mark

WolfMoon · 09-17-2004, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeapotScar

Personally, I like Michael Moore... his passion for politics reminds me of when my mother started hysterically crying when it was clear Bush was going to take office in 2001. Obviously, he has his faults, but his heart is in the right place and that's more than I can say for our current president...

On an exciting note- HE'S COMING TO MY COLLEGE THIS MONDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :P

Wow,I totally feel for you babe.Sorry.

Disfunction · 09-17-2004, 08:01 PM

Here comes my sleep-deprived opinion:

I like Michael Moore, and I am a fan. I don't take his words as infallable, and don't view him as omniscient, I DO, however, value the fact that he uses his money, position, etc to bring actual ideas to the socio-political spotlight, rather than it just being a matter of things that people converse about but never take into account since the media never really addressed it.

If someone accepts what someone says as the truth, you can't blame the person that spoke, only the person that mindlessly let it soak in. I don't like the one-sidedness of his arguments, but I also know that if he were to present both sides of the story, the balance would still be unfairly stacked in the favour of the media which has been on fairly good terms with the Bush administration.

CNN reported last night that the fate of Iraq looks "bleak." I've been harping about how it's a stupid fucking idea to force democracy on a politically volatile climate, but of course people harped right back at me saying that once they were allowed an process of democracy, they would never allow a reign of tyranny to rise anew... Keep your eye out for an "I told you so" further down the road.

In light of all of this, I find it desperately hard to understand why people would find it so easy to take up arms against MM, yet not utter one single word of protest towards the ever-biased systems of media in the US. Then when a foreigner decides to express their own opinion, many Americans see fit to disregard their opinion, as they "have no right to make comments on the American government." The standard argument is that the election will not affect us, which is of course complete utter bullshit. But I digress.

Feel free to criticize Michael Moore as an individual that freely dumps his equally biased anti-bush propaganda... But keep in mind that it's a two-way street, and that if you are going to take aim at one source, you should take the time to aim your sights on everyone else that enacts the same behaviour.

And in honour of my seething hatred of Bush, and the completely sloppy manner in which this ENTIRE conflict has gone about:

Anyone interest that has cable, I highly suggest watching this educational tidbit about the fuckup of the US... er... president.
http://movies01.archive.org/opensour...hole_truth.wmv

WolfMoon · 09-17-2004, 08:14 PM

He's just a loud-mouthed blow hard that got all depressed because he didn't get the attention he wanted at the awards ceremony he used as his political soap box.I'll never take anything the man says seriously because his ideas are absolutely ludicrous.Trying to blatantly say that Bush and Bin Laden staged 9-11 to get money?Please.And trying to re-enforce the moronic opinion that the whole war is about oil.

As I said before he lies,he takes things out of context,he tries to use propaganda to get people to believe him.So how is he any better than Bush?

Disfunction · 09-17-2004, 08:17 PM

Because he's got the physique of a roman gladiator?

WolfMoon · 09-17-2004, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disfunction

Because he's got the physique of a roman gladiator?

HA hahahahahahaha!!!!!!

I seriously hope you are joking because that fat piece of lard probably couldn't heft a real sword if his pathetic life depended on it.

Disfunction · 09-17-2004, 08:38 PM

Retired binge eating gladiator, but a gladiator nonetheless...

WolfMoon · 09-17-2004, 09:05 PM

I think he's more like Oprah,full of hot air.Gladiators had to fight for their lives.