0
piisfish

Fahrenheit 911

Recommended Posts

By claiming his films are documentaries, he is claiming everything therein is fact.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary
Quote

doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

documentary
a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event



His "facts" have been proven false in several places and by several sources.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

By claiming his films are documentaries, he is claiming everything therein is fact.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary

Quote

doc·u·men·ta·ries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

documentary
a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event



His "facts" have been proven false in several places and by several sources.



I just love it when people resort to the dictionary in an attempt to prove their points as if the semantics of the English language actually had anything to do with what they are saying. Documentary happens to be the category that his films are placed in. As we all know, some categories can be vague or overlap. Plus, I don't think they've ever had an "editorial" category in film-making which is probably the most appropriate for his work. Nonetheless, he does interview real people about real events so...

Now, as far as those facts which have been proven wrong, lay some out. Specifics, links, whatever, if it's so readily available. A quote by MM follwed by documentation that it is a lie would be great. But then maybe I'd just say like you guys about GW and Iraq's WMD, "he wasn't lying, he was just misinformed"

Never go to a DZ strip show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have YOU seen his work?

His rather creative editing of Hestons NRA speaches takes his work right out of "Documentry" into "LA-LA" land.

As for people using dictonary terms.... How the hell could you have a problem with that?

Unless it makes your point look stupid.

MM has the right to do whatever he wants...If he makes money doing it great...He wants to call it Art...great.

But that does not mean its worth shit, or true.

Most of his work is tripe. He tries to pass it off as a documentry when it is not.

However the foolish will think it is true, and just like you defend it.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Have YOU seen his work?

His rather creative editing of Hestons NRA speaches takes his work right out of "Documentry" into "LA-LA" land.



Yep I've seen a couple of his films and read a couple of his books. I know he's very biased and spins things his way. Much of it is simply editorial commentary with some interesting facts thrown in along the way. I have yet to see something that was represented to be a fact by Michael Moore disproven by any of you. You'd think as much as y'all obviously hate the guy you'd just be jumping to come up with something so where is it?

Quote

As for people using dictonary terms.... How the hell could you have a problem with that?

Unless it makes your point look stupid.



Umm, my point was that not everything that exists can be categorized and pigeon-holed to our liking. The fact that the film is awarded for a documentary category is not to say that everything in it can or should be taken literally or that it is fact, regardless of Webster's definition.

Quote

MM has the right to do whatever he wants...If he makes money doing it great...He wants to call it Art...great.

But that does not mean its worth shit, or true.



No disagreement there, that's what choice is all about.

Quote

Most of his work is tripe. He tries to pass it off as a documentry when it is not.

However the foolish will think it is true, and just like you defend it.



You definitely have the right to that opinion however noone has yet pointed out one single little mistake or inconsistency so is it really that I'm trying so hard to defend it or is it you with the effort to attack? And still the question, have you experienced any of his work?

Never go to a DZ strip show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not going to do this dance with you.

It's very simple. He misled audiences, and he called his movie a documentary. I'm not going to waste my time or HH's bandwidth repeating it. Do a search. You know it's there...you took part in those threads.

http://www.mooreexposed.com/
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/
http://www.moorelies.com/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11470
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34367
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

however noone has yet pointed out one single little mistake or inconsistency so is it really that I'm trying so hard to defend it



You must be working hard to ignore everything that's been said.

There have been pleny "single little mistakes or inconsistencies" pointed out. If you don't want to acknowledge them, that's your problem. It doesn't mean they don't exist.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm not going to do this dance with you.

It's very simple. He misled audiences, and he called his movie a documentary. I'm not going to waste my time or HH's bandwidth repeating it. Do a search. You know it's there...you took part in those threads.

http://www.mooreexposed.com/
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/
http://www.moorelies.com/
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11470
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34367
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html



I'm really glad you're not going to dance with me, that would be very un-red-blooded-god-fearing-capitalist-gun-loving-hetero-America n of you.

As for your sites, well, bias as we know, runs both ways.

I'm sure Moore edited speeches and even took things out of context, writers, editors, etc do so all the time. This also happens on both sides of the fence. You see it as misleading, I see it as being done for effect. Showing Heston say "from my cold dead hands" or whatever immediately after pictures of weeping victims of gun violence doesn't literally say "this happen a split second after those people cried". What it does say is that whether or not it was 11 days or 1 year after Columbine, Charlton doesn't give a f&ck, he wants his guns and will fight to keep them.

But I'm not talking about editing and things like that really because it goes on all over the place and anyone with half an ounce of sensibility about realizes that, particularly when viewing something with an ideological slant. What I'm talking about is things that can clearly be identified as fact, like "x amount of people died last year from gunshots". Has he lied about something like that?

Never go to a DZ strip show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm sure Moore edited speeches and even took things out of context, writers, editors, etc do so all the time. You see it as misleading, I see it as being done for effect.



Maybe you're confused.

The point of a documentary is to NOT DO THAT.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sooo...if some successful, popular, right-wing filmmaker (blowhard) convinces me through misinformation and misrepresentation of facts/statistics/whatever information to vote for pro-gun legislation, would you be just as angry? Or do you really think that all right-wing blowhards tell the absolute truth, too?



Do you enjoy putting words in my mouth? Misinformation is misinformation. What I'm saying is that when it comes to FACTS about GUNS, all the misinformation I've been seeing comes from the anti-gunners. I can't think of the last time I saw something supposedly factual about guns that the pro-gunners said, and I later found out was a lie.

But off the top of my head, from the anti-gunners, I can think of: "plastic guns that can go through airport security undetected" (Glocks, allegedly); "assault weapons" (which work just like a whole slew of NON-banned guns); "20...no, 13... no, 9...no, 7 children a day killed by guns" (a bullshit statistic if ever there was one, with 20-year-olds supposedly counting as "children"); "cop-killer bullets" (Such a thing does not exist. Hollow-point bullets are not designed to go through kevlar vests, armor-piercing handgun bullets are already sold only to law-enforcement officers, and any hunting rifle bullet will already defeat standard body armor -- so is that "armor piercing" and all rifle ammo must be banned??)... This list could easily be four times as long as I've made it; I've truncated it for time and space conservation.

Show me where the pro-gun side has lied about what a gun could do.

Quote

Quote

But it's not. Instead, I hear people at work chatting together about how good a movie Bowling for Columbine is, and I know that they are being misled, and are swallowing untruths whole. When people believe things that are false, and then make decisions (voting and otherwise) based on those falsehoods, that is a Bad Thing.


Quote

I did, and then I heard at least three different people talking about "what a good movie that Bowling for Columbine is." And that disturbed me.



You think people having the right to their own opinions is a bad thing? You say that you're giving them the benefit of the doubt that they can tell the difference between a so-called documentary and an editorial piece, yet you're assuming that they're "swallowing untruths whole" when they're merely commenting about how they think it's a good movie. Do you need another clue-in? That's called an opinion!



An opinion that is formed upon distorted information provided cynically for the specific purpose of manipulating that opinion is worthless. That's my point. The women at work whom I heard praising this movie don't know jack shit about guns, except for what Michael Moore told them; don't know jack shit about the NRA except for what Michael Moore told them. Then they go off, armed with this "knowledge," and vote and donate money and volunteer time in misguided ways, because they have been themselves deliberately misguided.

I don't have a problem with people having their own opinions, craichead. You shouldn't put words in my mouth like that. But I do object to people having foundationless opinions, based on falsehoods. Like if it's their opinion that we have to ban hollow-point ammunition because it's "cop-killer" ammunition -- this is the argument I've heard presented. That's a "WRONG opinion," and although you will probably argue about my calling an opinion "WRONG," I stand by it. If the opinion came about because the information upon which it is predicated is FALSE, the opinion itself is useless and WRONG.

Quote

I think Bowling for Columbine is a good movie. It's highly entertaining. I laughed...a lot. Maybe you're missing a sense of humour, and satire, and sarcasm. Perhaps that's the problem.

Do I believe everything that Michael Moore says? No.



Bully for you. Many many people (enough of them in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, anyway) do NOT look at BFC as "entertainment." It was presented as a DOCUMENTARY, and won an oscar as a DOCUMENTARY. That means a viewer should not have to sort through what is offered as a "false fact" strictly for "entertainment" or "humor." When Jacques Cousteau won at Cannes for his movie, back several decades ago, do you think he interspersed made-up shit among the facts about undersea life?

Moore intended his movie to deceive, and to color opinions. That it has done -- in all the dishonest and manipulative ways.

Quote

Could you clarify what you think you've debunked? I don't see it. The missile crap is the least of what I think is shady about Moore's movie. The more important things are the utter misrepresentation of Heston's actual speeches; the misrepresentation of the bank-rifle deal, and many others that you will find on various websites dedicated to debunking Moore's lies.

I care very little about whether the stupid Titan rockets were made in Littleton. That is a very minor point in a maelstrom of larger lies.



Again with the angry replies. Sheesh. Get a grip--you sound like a toddler in a tantrum. My "Titan rocket" posts weren't even meant to debunk your claims. They were to show how poor your arguments were (are). Your claims and arguments as you presented them were debunked. Your credibility and veracity in that thread are about as good as Michael Moore's. Had you made this post and this post from the very beginning instead of just paraphrasing and parroting what you read on other web sites, maybe you wouldn't look so much the fool and angry young man. If you were in a debate, would you make your opponent go Google for the facts that support your argument?



That quoted material seems "angry" to you? Gee, you must have a very low threshold. But who's the one calling someone "fool" and "angry young man"? "Toddler in a tantrum"? I think YOU are a shameless apologist for a lying sack of shit "documentarist." How's that? You're not capable of admitting that Moore is a liar, even when it is proved. Did you read the side-by-side comparison of the Heston speeches?

I watched as much of BFC on DVD as I could stomach. Time ran out and I had to return it to the library (yes, that's right, I paid nothing, so I avoided supporting Moore).

You accuse me of not providing facts to support my case. I pointed you to Google and to other websites because I didn't figure it was best to copy and paste everything here. Don't blame me for your laziness. If you really wanted facts on which to base your "opinion," you'd get them. You just don't want them.

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I'm not going to do this dance with you.



I'm really glad you're not going to dance with me, that would be very un-red-blooded-god-fearing-capitalist-gun-loving-hetero-America n of you.



Sarcasm. Ad-hominem. The indelible marks of the liberal.

Aaaaalways has to be dripping with arrogant sarcasm, detracting from any point that could possibly be made. Just an "I could make fun of you if I wanted to" jab. Verrry mature. Demonstrates the childish, petty, petulant mindset of the liberal.


Quote

As for your sites, well, bias as we know, runs both ways.



Then SHOW the fuckin' bias! You're sitting here telling us that we haven't provided any facts to rebut any of MM's supposed "facts," and then when we list half a dozen websites that DO have the debunking material, you tell us it's just going to be biased in the other direction. You're way out there, man. Apparently nothing will convince you MM lies. You ask us if we've seen or read MM's stuff, and accuse us of not having done, and then you apparently dismiss (presumably without having read) the numerous websites which we are asserting can dispel the myth of Moore's arguments.

So if you're sure that our sites have that "both ways" bias, why not copy and paste some parts where you can make us see that their debunking was actually incorrect? You know: hold yourself to the same standard you're telling US to maintain.

-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have yet to see something that was represented to be a fact by Michael Moore disproven by any of you.
________________________________________________
Ask and ye shall receive.

Moore Fabrication



While I've read the book which I found in the the comedy (note: not history) section of the bookstore and I think I remember a passage similar to this I must say, if chiding MM for this:

Quote

Where does this leave us? I think it's time for Moore to be held accountable. In Stupid White Men, he has 18 pages of "Notes and Sources," but he offers no evidence for the sham interview with me--no date, no transcript. How could he, since the interview never happened?



he might at least give us a reference of where in the book that occurred so that we might more easily learn of these lies. I guess I'll have to go buy it again so i can read it and know that every ideologue (not just those I disagree with) use anectdotes which may or may not be true to make their points.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is asking you a question putting words in your mouth? You seem to be enjoying avoiding answering those questions. Let me ask again: If some successful, popular, right-wing filmmaker (blowhard) convinces me through misinformation and misrepresentation of facts/statistics/whatever information to vote for pro-gun legislation, would you be just as angry? It's called a hypothetical question to present a point. But it looks like you missed it, yet again.

Quote

An opinion that is formed upon distorted information provided cynically for the specific purpose of manipulating that opinion is worthless. That's my point.



So why didn't you say that clearly in the first place? "Voting and otherwise" doesn't really clarify anything, does it? Again, another poorly made argument. You were criticizing your coworkers for merely saying that it was a good movie.

Quote

Many many people (enough of them in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, anyway) do NOT look at BFC as "entertainment." It was presented as a DOCUMENTARY, and won an oscar as a DOCUMENTARY.



And let me ask again, do you really think that they're the definitive source on what can be called a documentary?

Quote

That means a viewer should not have to sort through what is offered as a "false fact" strictly for "entertainment" or "humor."



Oh, I see. Everyone, even if they have their own brain to think with, is supposed to rely on some consortium of entertainment moguls to tell them what they can trust as a so-called documentary.

Are you implying that all those people who have seen the movie aren't able to think for themselves? That they're not able to see that it is only classified as a documentary, and that doesn't necessarily mean that it's totally factual? Do you think that every person who has seen one of his films believed every single word?

Quote

That quoted material seems "angry" to you? Gee, you must have a very low threshold. But who's the one calling someone "fool" and "angry young man"? "Toddler in a tantrum"?



Yup, when you needlessly call missiles crap, Titan rockets stupid, suits motherfucking, and try to make an argument that is totally unrelated to the point that my posts were trying to make...you look like a fool, an angry young man, and a toddler throwing a tantrum. Does peacefuljeffrey need a pacifier?

Quote

I think YOU are a shameless apologist for a lying sack of shit "documentarist." How's that? You're not capable of admitting that Moore is a liar, even when it is proved.



Okay, you can call me whatever you want. You can call MM whatever you want, too. Nope, I'm not going to call him a liar because I have no room to. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I don't believe everything he says, but I'm not going to call him a liar unless I know for absolutely sure all the truth about everything. Do you know the absolute truth about everything? Nothing is ever proven. There is surely evidence to support any argument, but there is no proof of anything.

Quote

Did you read the side-by-side comparison of the Heston speeches?



Yup, I think that was valid point saying that Moore's editing was misleading. However, he still used the exact words that Heston said. What's different about that and quoting bits and pieces of supporting text in an academic paper?

Quote

I pointed you to Google and to other websites because I didn't figure it was best to copy and paste everything here. Don't blame me for your laziness.



You don't have to cite everything. Just a few quotes would do. Even a link (which you finally included) is fine. Let me ask you again...if you were in a debate, would you make your opponent go Google for the facts that support your stance? I'm sure that would go over really well in a presidential debate. Or, say you're writing an academic paper--do you tell your professor that you're not going to cite any supporting evidence because it's all already out there? I can just imagine it: "Go search for it, Prof! No? Oh, you can't fail me for your laziness, Prof."

Quote

If you really wanted facts on which to base your "opinion," you'd get them. You just don't want them.



Um, you must have missed my post here yet again. Oh look, I've linked to web sites that offer both sides of the argument! I've even acknowledged that the anti-Moore web site has some valid points. Who's the one who doesn't want the facts?

_Pm
__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sarcasm. Ad-hominem. The indelible marks of the liberal.

Aaaaalways has to be dripping with arrogant sarcasm, detracting from any point that could possibly be made. Just an "I could make fun of you if I wanted to" jab. Verrry mature. Demonstrates the childish, petty, petulant mindset of the liberal.



And it looks as though this shows the hypocrisy of the conservative.

_Pm
__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Then SHOW the fuckin' bias!



The names of half the sites and the fact that they are devoted to being against Michael Moore is proof enough of the bias. The fact that they'd spend hard-earned money on a website against one man alone is fairly glaring evidence of bias against him. If that were not the case do you think anybody would give a damn about the editing of speeches in a documentary or whatever you like to call it?

Never go to a DZ strip show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll make a peace offering:

Michael Moore is a liar.

As we are all liars, or are guilty of having told a lie at one point in our lives, usually to avoid trouble or accomplish a desired result, such as say, convincing people that it's the right thing to do to initiate a large-scale ground invasion of a sovereign nation.;)

But I have to ask the question again for you detractors, have you seen it? Because, at least for me the point of BFC wasn't that guns were the main problem, after all part of the film took us to Canada where Michael pointed out that although there are many guns per capita, there is relatively little violence. So, in a way, you could view it as supporting the gun cause, after all the Canadians can handle guns without killing people. So maybe MM's point was really that American's are just a bunch of fucked up assholes. Which I really wouldn't disagree with anyway.:D

Never go to a DZ strip show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ever heard the phrase "where there's smoke, there's fire?"

I hear a lot of pro-gun people foaming at the mouth over this movie. Moore is a fat lying sack of shit, he claims the Titan missile is a weapon, he claims banks give guns away, he puts forth a "malestrom of lies" etc etc.

Now, I saw this movie, and didn't much care for it. The only interesting parts of it (to me) were his interviews with militia members and townspeople, because I hadn't heard their perspectives before. But the rest of it was just a filmmaker trying to push his politics.

So I immediately forgot most of it. I just didn't think it merited much comment. I think the same about the anti-abortion protesters with their pictures of baby chunks, the Bush protesters who walk around with "BUSH=HITLER" signs, and the oil companies who make the "how Exxon is saving Shamu" films. All of them clearly had an agenda, and all I really wanted to know was what it was. OK, you're pro-life, check. I don't need a half hour conversation with an activist to figure that out; it's pretty clear from their signs, and over the course of their sermon I wouldn't hear anything I hadn't heard before.

So I am suprised that so many pro-gun people keep bringing up this movie. There's an old saying that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" and you're proving that old adage true.

Want to make Moore's work wildly successful? Want to make production companies think "I gotta get me a piece of that?" Rant and rave, tell all your friends not to see it. At our high school, the dean of students virtually guaranteed that everyone in the school saw "The Life of Brian" by telling us to not see it. Do the same, and you will be doing your part to make Moore a success. A few pro-gun people have even challenged people to do that - "Have you seen the film?" Better run out, rent the video, and put another few cents in Moore's pocket.

As Farenheight 9/11 comes out, ask yourself this - wouldn't you rather his next film be a complete flop than a controversial, edgy film that makes millions? I'd rather it just flop - mainly because I don't want to read about it for the next six months. That's giving Moore more credit than he deserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'll make a peace offering:

Michael Moore is a liar.

As we are all liars, or are guilty of having told a lie at one point in our lives, usually to avoid trouble or accomplish a desired result, such as say, convincing people that it's the right thing to do to initiate a large-scale ground invasion of a sovereign nation.;)

But I have to ask the question again for you detractors, have you seen it? Because, at least for me the point of BFC wasn't that guns were the main problem, after all part of the film took us to Canada where Michael pointed out that although there are many guns per capita, there is relatively little violence. So, in a way, you could view it as supporting the gun cause, after all the Canadians can handle guns without killing people. So maybe MM's point was really that American's are just a bunch of fucked up assholes. Which I really wouldn't disagree with anyway.:D



I have to agree with Benny here. What I took away from Bowling For Columbine was that America's "culture of hysteria, paranoia, and fear" was more of the problem than the guns themselves.
"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll see the movie in around 2weeks time when it comes out here.
Will keep you updated of what I think of the movie.
Now I am not saying MM is good, or bad, if he is right or wrong. Just that he has the courage (or interest) to stirr the sh*t, or to spit in the soup. He could do this with any government in the US or in most (all ? ) countries in the world. He finds some things are wrong, and expresses his point of view. Some might not be thinking the same as he does, and it disturbs.
scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


So I am suprised that so many pro-gun people keep bringing up this movie. There's an old saying that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" and you're proving that old adage true.



It is the belief of the gun lobbies that saying nothing when lies are told that had lead the public to think assault weapons ban kept machine guns off the street, that glocks are made [solely] of plastic, that 10 kids a day die to gunfire. Silence implies truth. Or it may just be that they were particularly offended by the interview with Heston. Certainly as a group he would be in the top 5 Enemies List.

I don't think the negative publicity from gun groups helped the success of Bowling one way or the other. He already established a reputation from his prior work.

The publicity that Arming America got lead to the author being forced out Emory University, and the Bancroft Aware he won for it rescinded. It might have sold a few more copies because of the end result, but the guy will never lose the academic fraud label.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>It is the belief of the gun lobbies that saying nothing when lies are told
>that had lead the public to think assault weapons ban kept machine guns
>off the street . . .

I can fully understand that. It's just odd that Moore is attacked so often, relative to, say, the Million Mom March (if the relative number of posts here is any indication.) It often seems like the issue for many pro-gun people is a personal dislike of Moore rather than a dislike of his causes, since the MMM is dedicated much more directly to assault weapons bans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I can fully understand that. It's just odd that Moore is attacked so often, relative to, say, the Million Mom March (if the relative number of posts here is any indication.) It often seems like the issue for many pro-gun people is a personal dislike of Moore rather than a dislike of his causes, since the MMM is dedicated much more directly to assault weapons bans.



True, there's definitely more focus and anger towards him. I'll venture it is because he gets recognition and accolades, while the MMM has essentially failed. It never had close to a million moms, nor enough due paying members to sustain their intended efforts.

There are a lot of people here who are hostile to criticisms of the Bush Administration in general, and esp wrt the wars in the Middle East. There is a big overlap with the group of gun owners, so Moore has committed sin twice in two movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

An opinion that is formed upon distorted information provided cynically for the specific purpose of manipulating that opinion is worthless.



Which reminds me: did you see the 2003 State of the Union Address by President Bush?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Film is an art and therefore has no rules. I feel that you would be hard pressed to find any document that deals with "subject matter in a neutral way," for any that suggest all documentary "must" necessarily be. The very act of making a film suggests an agenda.

There are very few documentaries that are objective. The things that are presented in a documentary are true (at least until proven false), but the message does not have to be. All documentary filmmakers have an agenda, something they want to get across. This may mean omission, "creative" cutting or similar. This does not mean that the footage is false, and as such it is still documentary. The message is another story. The message is almost always biased.

You cannot put down Moore for having an agenda. The same is true for every single documentary filmmaker. Has anyone seen virtually every important film ever made.? None of them have altered the outcome of an election the way this one will. It may not be the best film ever made in terms of its art... but it will be the most important film in terms of influence.

The temperature where freedom burns.
Nine members of the Cannes jury awarded prizes, one was French while four were Americans, including jury president Quentin Tarantino and actress Kathleen Turner. Quentin Tarantino -- -- told Moore 'We want you to know that the politics of your film had nothing to do with the award. You were given the award because you made a great film.'"

:PB|:P
I think it's highly amusing how upset some people are. People are slamming the facts of this movie as being completely inaccurate, yet they haven't even seen it yet. What is supposed to make a country great--is the fact that we are able to view, read, discuss, etc. different perspectives and then be able to draw our own conclusions and ideas.

SMiles;)
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away."
eustress. : a positive form of stress having a beneficial effect on health, motivation, performance, and emotional well-being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0