|
Grex > Cinema > #68: Grex goes to the movies - The Summer Movies Review Item |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 323 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 6 of 323:
| 
Jun 24 07:40 UTC 2004 |
McNally wrote
[b]for the most part I think he's a master of
cheap shots, duplicitous justapositions, and the "post hoc, ergo
propter
hoc" logical fallacy. [/b]
Don't make such accusations unless you can back them up with specifics.
Its easy to say those things when you don't agree with his political
views, but unfair unless you can back it up. At least Moore gives details
and specifics. Did you see "Roger and Me"? That was a powerful
documentary that has only resonated even better over time than it did when
it first came out. "Bowling for Columbine" made a lot of good points too.
There is nothing wrong with a documentary filmmaker who wants to make a
statement, and push a particular point of view, in his work. This is just
one point of view. He is not making any pretense of being unbiased, and
he doesn't have to. Reporters reading the news have to be unbiased.
Columnist and documentarians do not. Moore's tactics aren't any worse
than what Robert Novak and Bill O'Reilly do in their columns.
|
slynne
|
|
response 7 of 323:
|
Jun 24 14:06 UTC 2004 |
I havent ever heard anyone accuse Michael Moore of being fair or
balanced. Even Michael Moore admits that he has an agenda with his
films. Still, I like his sense of humor and I expect that I will like
this film as much as I have liked his other ones. And hey, once in a
while, he opens my eyes to something. Like that Marilyn Manson
interview in Bowling for Columbine. Interesting that the creepy rock
star with the terrible lyrics seemed to actually be a nice guy with a
brain in his head. Well wht do you know! And what Marilyn Manson said
about not talking to kids but listening to them has kind of stuck with
me. *shrug*
|
jor
|
|
response 8 of 323:
|
Jun 24 15:06 UTC 2004 |
I am tempted to go to the Mich to see it tomorrow
when it opens. I only go to see first run films
about once per century.
|
tod
|
|
response 9 of 323:
|
Jun 24 15:27 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 10 of 323:
|
Jun 24 15:34 UTC 2004 |
Haha. I am kind of thinking that I might try to catch a morning show at
Showcase tomorrow but I dont think I am going to have time. GRRRR
|
furs
|
|
response 11 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:13 UTC 2004 |
re #5. I'm sorry, you are wrong. That would be iggy.
|
klg
|
|
response 12 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:26 UTC 2004 |
This movie is, of course, a despicable work of propaganda and
trickery. But we are interested in learning whether the "we're under
attack" quote is, in fact, true. If so, (1) how is that known if it
was whispered and (2) was the the entire extent of the interchange
between the President and his aide?
|
slynne
|
|
response 13 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:29 UTC 2004 |
resp:5 richard isnt one for checking facts. Moore may have attended UM-
Flint but he never graduated. Next you are going to tell us about all
of Moore's great work in Michigan getting rid of the death penalty
here. ;) hahahaha. (remember that one, richard?)
|
slynne
|
|
response 14 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:30 UTC 2004 |
resp:12 I am sure that if anyone was slandered, they wont hesitate to
take legal action.
|
klg
|
|
response 15 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:33 UTC 2004 |
Why? And in this context, what constitutes "slander?"
|
slynne
|
|
response 16 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:43 UTC 2004 |
Well I figure that if Moore told any actual *lies* in his movie, he
will be sued. I imagine that he didnt. Which isnt to say that I expect
the movie to be unbiased. But having a bias is different from telling
untruths.
|
jor
|
|
response 17 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:52 UTC 2004 |
I read or heard somewhere, recently, Bushie was
acting nonchalant on purpose. c/b spin control in
respnse to MM's film.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 18 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:53 UTC 2004 |
IHB tod started a new item for 9/11 discussion.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 19 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:55 UTC 2004 |
Bush may be, but the talking points still involve villifying Moore in
whatever ways possible.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 20 of 323:
|
Jun 24 16:55 UTC 2004 |
There is a difference between telling a one-sided story and telling
lies. Most critical commentary is one-sided. Take Jonathan Swift,
for example, who excoriated hypocracy and stupidity. That was one-sided, but
not lying. Does Moore lie? Very little, as far as I can tell - at least
that is not what he is criticized for. He is criticized for telling
one-sided stories. Well, OK then: let his critics tell the *whole* stories,
but not of course omitting what Moore highlights or they will be equally
one-sided.
|
klg
|
|
response 21 of 323:
|
Jun 24 17:08 UTC 2004 |
Mr. Moore is, for example, legendary for using trick editing to convey
false impressions to his audience. He uses the camera to lie for him.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 323:
|
Jun 24 17:15 UTC 2004 |
Examples?
|
klg
|
|
response 23 of 323:
|
Jun 24 17:18 UTC 2004 |
The trickery involved with Charleton Heston's speech the the NRA, for
one. A second example is "showing" the ease with which a bank depositor
could obtain a gun as a premium, when, in fact, in his case it was all
pre-arranged.
|
scott
|
|
response 24 of 323:
|
Jun 24 17:19 UTC 2004 |
Don't be silly, Rane. klg has solid opinions about the content and
presentation of this movie, and despite the fact that he'll probably never
see this movie, he'll defend his opinions of it to the death.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 323:
|
Jun 24 17:48 UTC 2004 |
Heston said what was shown that he said. No words were put in his mouth.
What "trickery"? And are you denying that the bank offered a gun as a
premium?
I looked at http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/bank.
htm
where the "staging" of the scene is described. Of course it had to be
"staged" to be filmed. But the fact remains: the bank was offering a gun
as a premium. Most people consider that weird on its own. Toasters, sure:
but, guns?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 26 of 323:
|
Jun 24 18:20 UTC 2004 |
re #6:
>> for the most part I think he's a master of cheap shots, duplicitous
>> juxtapositions, and the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy. [/b]
>
>
> Don't make such accusations unless you can back them up with specifics.
> Its easy to say those things when you don't agree with his political
> views, but unfair unless you can back it up.
Is there anyone here who has given serious thought to Moore's work
(which obviously excuses Richard) who doesn't think these are fair
criticisms? They don't mean that Moore's work isn't entertaining or
interesting, but let's not confuse entertaining or interesting with
honest. One must keep in mind when reading Moore's writings or watching
his films that Moore is an untrustworthy narrator.
Richard doesn't seem to be able to separate the idea of criticism of
Michael Moore's argumentative style from criticism of Moore's political
positions. I suspect he would therefore be shocked to find out that I
agree (at least partly) with Moore's positions on a number of issues.
I'm not willing, though, to check my skepticism and critical thinking
skills at the door when listening to someone, even when I agree with
much of what they're saying. I simply don't appreciate being conned,
even (or perhaps especially) when the con artist is telling me the
things I want to hear.
> He is not making any pretense of being unbiased, and he doesn't
> have to. Reporters reading the news have to be unbiased.
> Columnist and documentarians do not. Moore's tactics aren't any worse
> than what Robert Novak and Bill O'Reilly do in their columns.
Is that really the standard to which we aspire: no more intellectually
dishonest than Bill O'Reilly? Perhaps democracy really *is* doomed.
|
richard
|
|
response 27 of 323:
|
Jun 24 19:05 UTC 2004 |
RE #13..slynne, I don't recall any item where Michael Moore's views on the
death penalty in michigan were discussed, at least by me. You must be
confused.
re: mcnally, okay I see your problems are with his style. Moore has an in
your face take no prisoners style and he has been accused of not being
tactful. there were people who thought he ambushed poor charlton heston and
didn't like it. But it didn't change the words that came out of Heston's
mouth did it? It is whether the means justify the ends, when it comes to
Moore's tactics. I believe that what he is telling is truth, in a way that
few others have the guts to tell it these days, and questionable tactics
aside, that should be admired.
btw, at the theater, every single showing all day long in all three theaters
in the multiplex that had it were sold out all day long yesterday and today
in advance. this movie should break all the records for highest grossing
documentary. Makes you wonder if Disney regrets refusing to release it.
Moore gets in his shot there too. In the movie, he goes into the various
corporations that Saudis are heavily invested in, and pointedly mentions
Disney as being one them.
|
slynne
|
|
response 28 of 323:
|
Jun 24 19:34 UTC 2004 |
resp:27 I was just teasing you about that one time when you went on a
rant about how no one in Michigan seemed to be doing anything to
abolish the death penalty. That was years ago but it stuck in my mind
because it was soooooo funny ;)
|
gull
|
|
response 29 of 323:
|
Jun 24 19:43 UTC 2004 |
Re resp:4: I consider him more like Rush Limbaugh than Ann Coulter. Ann
Coulter is her own special brand of harshness -- she thinks anyone who
disagrees with her is guilty of treason. Reading her work you get the
impression she wants to see all liberals locked up behind razor wire.
Moore, like Limbaugh, is selective and one-sided, plays fast and loose
with the facts, and is an entertainer, not a journalist. Moore,
unlikely Limbaugh, is actually funny. (Limbaugh used to be funnier,
before he started taking himself so seriously, though.)
Of course, Limbaugh's audience and media exposure is exponentially
larger than Moore's, too.
Re resp:25: The Ford dealership in Houghton used to run a promo where if
you bought an F-150, you got entered in a drawing to win a .30-06. I
thought at the time that this was the most redneck bit of advertising
I'd ever heard.
|
klg
|
|
response 30 of 323:
|
Jun 24 19:49 UTC 2004 |
Why is Mr. Moore's film called a documentary? He states that he is not
a journalist; rather, he is a comedian. And a rich comedian at that,
masquerading as a "man of the people." He owns 2 homes, each valued at
> $1M. Even his "life" is a fictional fraud.
|