I actually really enjoyed Bowling for Columbine, right up until the end, when he acted like an ASS with Charlton Heston even though the guy was being overly gracious with him. Moore likes to make himself the story a bit much. The actual Columbine footage was chilling, and the interviews with Matt Stone and Marilyn Manson were excellent. I also liked Roger and Me for the most part. Moore should let his work speak for itself and keep his big trap shut otherwise. So I'd give his films a qualified Yay, but I'd give him a big fat Nay. I will definitely see his new film, but I don't expect it to be at all objective.
Posts: 314 | Location: Cali | Registered: 14 May 2004
I thought Bowling for Columbine was great. What kind of spoiled Moore for me was this entire debacle about his new movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. It was one too many ridiculous promotional stunts for me, I guess.
Best wishes, ~V
Posts: 570 | Location: Boston | Registered: 17 May 2004
Michael Moore's saving grace to me is that he doesn't take himself too seriously. I think other people take him too seriously and get all offended. It also helps that my views happen to mesh with his ... but he really won me over when he made fun of himself at this year's Oscars. Someone who has a healthy sense of humor about himself can't be that bad.
I see him as kind of a modern day PT Barnum. He's a showman and I think it's good that he uses it for something useful.
I think the web site you posted was very interesting ... although I never thought that Moore was trying to present something objcctive. As for the extent of the manipulation, I'd like to see more than one person's web site before I totally believe everything on there. Not that I think it can't be true, but I'm a skeptic.
Also it's hard for me to be bothered about it since it doesn't change my agreement with the movie's basic message, but I'd probably be more angered if I had felt the movie had changed my mind, or opened my eyes or taught me things.
I agree with the films message, but its hard for me not to feel ripped out that Moore blatantly lied for the sake of sensationalism. Its just bad, deceptive practice.
Posts: 335 | Location: Sydney, Australia | Registered: 14 May 2004
quote:Originally posted by KT: Michael Moore's saving grace to me is that he doesn't take himself too seriously. I think other people take him too seriously and get all offended...although I never thought that Moore was trying to present something objcctive...
The problem with Michael Moore is the fact that he wants the best of both worlds. He wants people to see him as a fun-loving satirist who pokes fun of big, money-making industries that we'd all love to hate. But then he also wants us to take his message seriously, too. SNL and Jay Leno are great examples of comedians who poke fun at newmakers and companies. But the difference between them and Moore is that SNL isn't hoping that at the end of Weekend Update that you hate Bush or become an anti-gun lobbist. They simply want you to laugh. Moore wants you to change your mind about something. But then when someone comes out and shows the world that Moore was deceiving his audience with fictional scenerios his fans defend him by saying "we shouldn't take him too seriously." Well, I'm sorry. Gun control and national security are serious issues and if he wasn't trying to make jokes about them and misleading millions of Americans about the topics, maybe I wouldn't be offended. In short, Moore is a very irresponsible citizen who uses media to trick people into thinking like him.
quote:Originally posted by KT: As for the extent of the manipulation, I'd like to see more than one person's web site before I totally believe everything on there. Not that I think it can't be true, but I'm a skeptic...
More Moore, you really want more Moore? When will so-called conservatives understand that so-called liberals are their brothers? The U.S.A. is run on the two-party system, unfortunately. This is not stated anywhere in the Constitution. The two-party system is what is sending this country to hell, not the various members of that system. I would rant about W. or Kerry or Nader, if it mattered, but the bottom line is that anyone who wants to be president, should automatically be disqualified. Anyway, if the "right" got really right and the "left" got really left, and they both lived on Earth, it would be amazing how close they were. What we need is exactly what everybody knows; a combo that has EVERYONE"S interests at heart, and not their own specific special-interest groups. If this so-called two-party system can't make it happen, then we need some more parties, or we need to disband all parties, but unfortunately, I don't think the Supreme Court, aka Assholes will let that fly.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12874 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
Wow, mark f, that's a pretty cynical view on things.
I, too, have voted third party more often than not. But I have come to see that although having more parties would be a good thing, it certainly won't even begin to fix the problems that face mankind.
mark, you're looking for someone who "has EVERYONE's interests at heart." Well, both current parties in the US would claim to be doing that very thing...so what would a third party bring to the current mix other than another bunch of politians saying "we're right"?
I guess I don't follow your logical at all. Help me out. Michael Moore is certainly not a brother to any conservative in the US. He's looking at big governmental controls over, say guns, while his conservative counterparts want the government to butt out. How would getting farther left and farther right from these positions get them "amazingly close"? They're polar opposites.
Posts: 25 | Location: Wisconsin, USA | Registered: 20 May 2004
Let's say, at least theoretically, that two people were at the equator. One goes left, the other right. At some point, they would have to meet. As far as individual issues go, I can accept the polar-opposite thing. As far as making the country "work", I think we have to go with the meeting-up-together thing, and because of partisan politics, that can't happen. Maybe if you got rid of the parties, you could get rid of partisanship, and actually let people THINK about things, instead of stay on auto-pilot.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12874 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
quote:Originally posted by enkydu: SNL and Jay Leno are great examples of comedians who poke fun at newmakers and companies. But the difference between them and Moore is that SNL isn't hoping that at the end of Weekend Update that you hate Bush or become an anti-gun lobbist. They simply want you to laugh. Moore wants you to change your mind about something. But then when someone comes out and shows the world that Moore was deceiving his audience with fictional scenerios his fans defend him by saying "we shouldn't take him too seriously." Well, I'm sorry. Gun control and national security are serious issues and if he wasn't trying to make jokes about them and misleading millions of Americans about the topics, maybe I wouldn't be offended. In short, Moore is a very irresponsible citizen who uses media to trick people into thinking like him.
Problem with your statement is that SNL and Jay Leno are COMEDIANS whereas Micheal Moore is a satirist. Satire is serious, but told in a humorous way. Comedy is just there to make you laugh.
My problem with this "Micheal Moore cheating thing" is that if he were to really cheat, really splice and edit video footage then there would be a heavier controversy surrounding, not limited to some obscure web publications. For all we know, the author of those articles could be making stuff up just as Micheal Moore supposedly is.
Also, "BfC" is not a "right-left" movie it's about our nation's obsession with guns--which is true, re-edited footage or not.
Now to say, that "Farenheit 9/11" uses spliced footage and therefore all points that Mr. Moore makes are invalid would be an "OK" criticism, for that movie is about W. and the right-wing.
quote:Originally posted by Eccentro: My problem with this "Micheal Moore cheating thing" is that if he were to really cheat, really splice and edit video footage then there would be a heavier controversy surrounding, not limited to some obscure web publications. For all we know, the author of those articles could be making stuff up just as Micheal Moore supposedly is. ~Eccentro
He links his claims.
Posts: 335 | Location: Sydney, Australia | Registered: 14 May 2004
I strongly dislike Michael Moore. The hypocrisy of denouncing the media for their obsession with media figures and his completely dependency on being a media figure is absolutely sickening. And yes, I think he is getting fatter and fatter.
And I hated Bowling for Columbine. It is chronologically false, intellectually insulting, and entirely distorted to compliment his political agenda.
I'm kind of ashamed that he has a house not too far from me.
------------------------------------------------------- Awkwardness happening to someone you love!
Posts: 860 | Location: Boston, MA | Registered: 14 May 2004
I believe Roger and Me was also cronologically false.
But anyway, as for Michael Moore, I really have no problem with him. he makes funny, amusing movies. I was in no way phased politically by any of his films. You have to understand that he can lie, cheat, and basically say whatever the hell he wants. No one has to believe or agree with him. It's just a movie. I didn't go out of my way to see his movies because I wanted to know what he thought about our government, I went to see his movies because I knew they'd make me laugh.
So if you're going to Michael Moore movies because you want to learn something, then you're going to the wrong place. Want to learn? Then read a book. But if you want to enjoy yourself in front of a movie screen while sipping on a seven dollar fountain soda, then Michael Moore is a guaranteed hoot.
And if you liked Moore's stuff, go watch Supersize Me. Yeah, we all know Mickey D's is bad for you, but go watch the movie nonetheless. Remember, you're not going to see it to get educated, you're going to see it to laugh your ass off.
K-Dog
Posts: 196 | Location: Purgatory | Registered: 04 June 2004
quote:Originally posted by K-Dog: I believe Roger and Me was also cronologically false.
But anyway, as for Michael Moore, I really have no problem with him. he makes funny, amusing movies. I was in no way phased politically by any of his films. You have to understand that he can lie, cheat, and basically say whatever the hell he wants. No one has to believe or agree with him. It's just a movie. I didn't go out of my way to see his movies because I wanted to know what he thought about our government, I went to see his movies because I knew they'd make me laugh.
So if you're going to Michael Moore movies because you want to learn something, then you're going to the wrong place. Want to learn? Then read a book. But if you want to enjoy yourself in front of a movie screen while sipping on a seven dollar fountain soda, then Michael Moore is a guaranteed hoot.
_K-Dog_
But thats the whole point, hes recognised as a documentary maker. BFC won an Oscar for best documentary even though it wasnt.
Posts: 335 | Location: Sydney, Australia | Registered: 14 May 2004
That's a good point. If in fact he fabricated and manipulated most of the film then I'd say he doesn't deserve the Oscar for Best Documentary. However, that doesn't keep me from laughing at his movies and that's all I really care about. It's like telling stories to your friends. You exaggerate them to make them more interesting. That's basically what Moore does.
If a friend of your's cheats on his tests do you get pissed at him? The only way I'd really have negative feelings towards Moore is if I were a documentary film maker and I was a nominee for the Oscar that he won or if he killed my family; in those cases I'd probably go with "nay".
K-Dog
Posts: 196 | Location: Purgatory | Registered: 04 June 2004
