seeking Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 tess, here i am agreeing with you agreeing with me. ha. i would do things differently if i were moore, but at the same time, moore isn't running for office. i look at his stuff the same way i looked at 'supersize me'. it wasn't some giant scientific study, and doesn't hold a monopoly on truth, but i don't need a scientist to tell me that 60% of americans being over weight is a fucking HUGE problem. moore is very important because he raises points that no one else raises, and forces them to be discussed. by being so outspoken and so controversial, it forces EVERYONE to talk about it. i like the way job stewart handles politics and entertainment much better. i think he is far less of a sensationalist, BUT, he also does not get nearly the publicity that moore does, and that publicity is a huge thing. it gets republicans out there refuting things, which just keeps the issues in the public. ok, i gotta get out of work, but i'm looking forward to this movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 angel..maybe you could articulate what you find ludacris exactly.. and considering the context, that is a terrible application of a quote as far as i'm concerned. i think the criticism of moore is getting tired considering the climate. it's sorta like arguments between liberals and conservatives.. they talk right past each other and focus solely on the ideology of each other instead of the issue(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Jean-Luc Godard, the legendary French director who helped to launch the New Wave movement in the 1960s, had harsh words for Moore this week. Godard's latest film, Notre Musique, premiered on Monday, the same day as Fahrenheit 9/11. Later in the week, Godard lashed out at Moore at a press conference, calling him "halfway intelligent." Godard, who hadn't seen Fahrenheit 9/11, compared it unfavourably to the work of American documentarian Frederick Wiseman. "It's like two different worlds," Godard said. Moore's film criticizes U.S. President George W. Bush's handling of the Sept. 11 attacks, and also highlights the links between Bush's family and the family of Osama bin Laden. But Godard said Moore's film was an ineffectual piece of work. "He's not even hurting Bush," Godard said. "He's helping him in an underground way. Bush is either less stupid than he looks or so stupid you can't change him." Godard went on to say that the Flint, Mich.-born director lacks subtlety. "Moore doesn't distinguish between text and image," Godard argued. "He doesn't know what he's doing." To continue my point about Godards critisism on Moore, i once again agree. However, i cant see how a more subtle and artistic film could point out the same issues. Lets look at last years Palm d'or winner, Lars Von Triers 'Dogville'... that whole movie is a hymn against america and at the same time a film masterpiece..do you see anyone(in the states) talking about it? Europeans have a whole different way of presenting ish just because our reality is different than yours, our media is different than yours and our elections are different than yours. When Trier is talking about America, americans dont listen. When Moore does it, hell brakes loose..seems pretty fair to me when its in the hands of the americans to give end to an administration that with its actions brought for many problems for practically everyone on this planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 as far as moore being a sensationalist... that's the culture. that's the media format. sadly, that's how you get through to a generation of people hooked on a dictator. movies are more pervasive and effective than i'd like to ponder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 These last 15' on this thread are priceless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 I know next to nothing about Moore, but it does seem like he is full of fire and vigor, blood and ichor. Then again there is probably no other way to tell such an ugly story as Frank Rich said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Originally posted by angelofdeath http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ What the hell is this gobbledegook? I might not have seen bowling for columbine but this website making these meticulous and ridiculous rebuttles is utter scuttlebutt. Hey I like guns. But why refute that a bank gives away guns? I mean I know of a gas station in michigan where you can buy all kinds of guns.... ARs AKs.... whatever.... A GAS STATION! My bro told me you can buy RPGs at gas stations in pakistan.... NO SHIT! You ever seen nigger toe beef jerky? This country is fucked up. Michael Moore might be a polemicist but this website is no better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 hahaha, fuckinA villain...pure trash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villain Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 word to yo momma tesser.... wonk saggin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERIZENO Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 Originally posted by angelofdeath http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/ Man, this is just a right wing -- left wing fight. reading through this site just confirms to me some ulta right wing guy went thru and picked apart every facet of this movie to make it invalid in his eyes. he uses the same tactics Moore uses at that. There was much truth to be had in Bowling, however he doctored it up a bit giving anyone who wants a way to pick it to the bone a way to make him sound like a leftist madman. It is what it is, those who want truth find it, those who want to dismiss it will do just that. (kind of like the Bible, and all the diffrent views of the same words) their minds are made up before they see it. Same will happen with the new one, only thing is the fingerpointing by Moore is much more direct to the Whitehouse this time around. But the subject matter is (in Moores eyes, mine too) a direct result of the current admins. policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Æ° Posted May 24, 2004 Share Posted May 24, 2004 I like how he already had one in the chamber with comebacks. From his webpage/newsletter: P.S. When you hear the wackos on Fox News and elsewhere refer to this prize as coming from “the French,” please know that of the nine members of the Festival jury, only ONE was French. Nearly half the jury (four) were Americans and the President of the jury was an American (Quentin Tarantino). But this fact won’t stop the O’Reillys or the Lenos or the Limbaughs from attacking the French and me because, well, that’s how their simple minds function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaCosaNostra Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 michael moore is bout it bout it, and i love it. he brings to light shit that needs to be taken seriously and the genral american public needs to be aware of. www.rense.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_El Mamerro Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Regardless of my dislike for this guy's penchant for manipulation, sensationalism, and sometimes downright distortion, I can't wait to watch this flick, and I really hope it makes a strong impact on people. If there's one thing I admire the guy for, it's his ability to open eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shape1369 Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 cmon now... mams, we talked on the seti thread so i hope u know i got some smarts behind me. anywho. lets think this through shall we. yes, homeboy does manipulate his film, and does so very strongly to make a point. but ill be damned if it doesnt fuckin catch our attention. needless to say, moore does no more manipulation of fact and or dialogue than any of us do. hes making a point, an argument. the best way to argue is to take ur opponents words and skew them until they catch themselves in a lie. albeit it isnt the most honest approach, the end result puts u on the high horse and them in the dirt. moore is merely a messenger for the general underground attitude of the american public. even if he represents things with a certain slant, thats fine, that slant is there in the public wether we choose to say it or not. look at the polls and how bush is faring. some may refute the effectiveness of polls, but i generally tend to believe the AP and Gallop in terms of public opinion. bush is fuckin it up hardcore and films like this are merely a reflection of the statements that no one wants to voice but is at the tip of their tongue. "Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention" - Kevin Spacey, via Se7en Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 I don't like Michael Moore. I think he is an entertainer, not a documentarian, which is fine if he didn't try to make himself seem like a documentarian and if everybody didn't take him so literally. His books, movies, and TV shows are filled with embelishments, lies, distorted truths, and self-promotion. I constantly feel like he is treating me as if I am emotionally weak and as if I am dumb. He's also an egotistical, hypocritical asshole. However, he is able to get a message of dissent (however disorganized and shallow it is) across to a large amount of people and Fahrenheit 9/11 is surely going to surpass BFC in it's audience and success. Seeing how this country is lead by a team of liars, hypocrites, and assholes and he is aiming to take them down, I can tolerate him for now and appreciate the moves that he is making to get people off their ass to vote. It is also no surprise that mass amounts of people are willing to swallow every word Moore speaks as the truth, but it would be nice if they did a little of their own research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fermentor666 Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Re: cmon now... Originally posted by shape1369 mams, we talked on the seti thread so i hope u know i got some smarts behind me. anywho. lets think this through shall we. yes, homeboy does manipulate his film, and does so very strongly to make a point. but ill be damned if it doesnt fuckin catch our attention. needless to say, moore does no more manipulation of fact and or dialogue than any of us do. hes making a point, an argument. the best way to argue is to take ur opponents words and skew them until they catch themselves in a lie. albeit it isnt the most honest approach, the end result puts u on the high horse and them in the dirt. moore is merely a messenger for the general underground attitude of the american public. even if he represents things with a certain slant, thats fine, that slant is there in the public wether we choose to say it or not. I think that the big problem with Moore's manipulation of the truth, distortions, false accusations, etc. is that this guy is being made into a hero for purporting to be a valid bringer of the truth. Infact, he proclaims himself to be a champion of truth, which is just not true. And as for your Seven quote, it's a good quote but the sledgehammer does not represent lies, manipulations, or anything false being used to get peoples attention. The sledgehammer is the cold hard fact cutting through all the bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_El Mamerro Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Well, fermentor pretty much said what I was gonna say, so... But like I said, this guy is an eye-opener and at times like this we need one desperately. I just wish he went about it in a way that wasn't so easy to brand him a sensationalist and thus get brushed off easily by those he rails against. As awesome as everyone around the country thought Bowling for Columbine was, I haven't seen a single drop of actual action taken towards resolving the problems presented in the film. I hope the case isn't the same this time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Originally posted by fermentor666 His books, movies, and TV shows are filled with embelishments, lies, distorted truths, and self-promotion. please find me examples of either lies or 'distorted truths', because i've seen alot of moore's stuff, been at public speaking engagements and read several books and i've yet to find a single actual lie, and very seldom even a severe distortion of truth. i'll give you occasional embellishments, or more to the point, blowing somewhat minor things out of proportion, but his are FAR less embellished than the 'truths' you get from rush or oreilly (who both claim themselves to be champions of truth, yet are constantly spitting flat out uncontestable lies). he definitely presents things with a heavy slant towards his perspective, but find me a single documentary ever made without an agenda. there isn't one. as for lies, moore backs up every single claim he makes with his sources, for anyone to look up and refute. if he was flat out lying about the stuff he says, he would be sued for slander, which he has not (my ex, a 3rd year law student, looked it up on lexes nexus last night, there wasn't a single case). as i've said, i don't care for the way he edit's things or presents some things to make a point, but it's not because i think he's lying, i just think it could be done a better way. bottom line though, is that if he didn't do things the way he does, it would all be overlooked. bob woodward's book was just as damning as anything moore has put out, but it gets no attention because your average person can't grasp it. moore gives people the issues and ideas in a way they can understand, when no one else is. it wouldn't be effective any other way (which is an incredibly sad commentary on us as a public). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mental invalid Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Originally posted by El Mamerro Regardless of my dislike for this guy's penchant for manipulation, sensationalism, and sometimes downright distortion, I can't wait to watch this flick, and I really hope it makes a strong impact on people. If there's one thing I admire the guy for, it's his ability to open eyes. i agree with mams, but you see this is okay if he want to do this... i think people on both sides of the spectrum, as seeking pointed out earlier, seem to miss the point... mikey moore is a satirist....as ancient as greek and roman satires go...the gnat in the horses eye...comedic wit poking at the government...he is not a reporter on the field he gives his version of the facts...his side of the story...we all know that each story has two sides...so mike preaches his, and lets the other half defend their story... moore doesnt want to paint you both sides of the picture, he wants to attack what he hates, he has no moral obligation to offer the other sides story because he is not a reporter...and this is where i think people that call him a truth bender are correct but fail to see why...he is giving his truth, not their truth....if they want their truth heard, then make a movie... he is a propagandist, a satirist, a opinionist....his films are selective and edited according to his story... but from a media standpoint, i would rather have the government put on the defensive and forced to engage in dialouge then an embedded reporter suckling on DoDs tit of information.... that is why i like moore....but its also why i dont always agree with him...but as mams says, he atleast make me think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mental invalid Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Originally posted by seeking roe, thanks for that. i'm very glad to hear that this isn't bowling for columbine 2 (which i have not yet seen, surprisingly enough). like dude said, IMO, you don't have to dress this story up or put a spin on it, the facts speak loud enough on their own. any word on a release? seeks what you had said previously about his knack for grandstanding made me think i should post that, as i was sorta of upset by some of this in bowling for columbine, especially the kmart scene. (regardless you should see it) and i think that alot of people think they same way.... i was happy to hear how frank rich described moore taking the backstage for once and moores own self awareness and audience awareness and how he effects the movie and the audience perception...how he declined miramaxs suggestions that people come to his movies to see him...all of it was quite refreshing, and caused me again to look at moore in added light.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mental invalid Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 from the new york times Moore Film Is Held Up by Questions About Rights By SHARON WAXMAN Published: May 25, 2004 LOS ANGELES, May 24 — Tense relations between Disney and Miramax are complicating a deal to find a distributor for Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," which is still without American representation two days after winning the Palme d'Or at the Cannes International Film Festival. Lions Gate, Focus Features and Newmarket have all expressed strong interest in releasing the film, which criticizes the president's launching of the war in Iraq and details ties between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia's upper class, including the bin Laden family. But executives at those companies, many of whom signed confidentiality agreements over the film, acknowledged privately that negotiations had been stalled because it is unclear who has the rights to it. "The deal hasn't been struck, with us or anyone else," said one leading executive at a distributor. "I think it's because of all the complications with Disney. Miramax is more consumed with dotting the i's and crossing the t's on the Disney equation." A Disney spokeswoman, Zenia Mucha, said there was no delay in transferring the film rights to the Miramax co-chairmen, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, who will make a deal with another distributor as private individuals. "We have been working diligently to do anything humanly possible to transfer the interests to Harvey and Bob," Ms. Mucha, said adding that the transfer might be imminent. Still, executives at Miramax confirmed that Disney had not yet worked out a deal for the Weinstein brothers to acquire the film privately, though they refused to discuss the issue in more detail. The controversy over the film and the maneuvering over the transfer of the rights is just the latest problem between Michael Eisner, the Walt Disney chairman, and the Weinsteins, who are in rancorous negotiations with him to renew their contract to run Miramax, an art-house division of Disney. The Weinsteins have hired prominent Hollywood lawyers, which is unusual for such negotiations. Mr. Eisner was said to be furious over news reports just before the Cannes festival that Disney had prohibited Miramax to distribute the film for political reasons. The news stoked a controversy that ultimately drew more attention to the movie, embarrassing Mr. Eisner and possibly raising the price for the film. Last week in New York Mr. Eisner told friends that Harvey Weinstein had made the movie despite his objections a year ago and had hidden the $6 million budget in loan financing documentation. That was why, Mr. Eisner told friends, that when Harvey Weinstein asked in recent weeks to see the film to consider its distribution by Miramax, the Disney chairman was angry to learn that the film had been made. A Miramax executive did not dispute that Disney opposed the film's distribution by Miramax, but the executive pointed out that Disney was fully aware that Miramax had provided a bridge loan to Mr. Moore to make the film, because distribution of the money required Disney's approval. The Miramax executive denied that anything had been hidden from Disney. Meanwhile, despite Mr. Moore's prediction over the weekend that the film would find a distributor within 24 hours, "Fahrenheit 9/11" now has distribution in every major international territory except the United States, and the frustration within Miramax at being unable to make a deal is palpable, with one executive there calling the current standoff ridiculous. In the past when Miramax has been forced to relinquish a film because of Disney's objections, such as with the Roman Catholic satire "Dogma" or the sexually disturbing "Kids," the Weinsteins have been permitted to buy the movie rights themselves and find independent distribution. In this case Mr. Moore and the Weinsteins have been making complex demands on competing bidders. Mr. Moore insists that whoever distributes the movie do so in July, presumably when it can still have an impact on the November election. A DVD release before November would double that impact. The Weinsteins, meanwhile, are looking for separate distributors for theatrical and DVD release and will certainly sell the DVD rights for more than the theatrical release, say those close to the negotiations, if the film rights are transferred as expected. Distributors say any delay will make it harder for them to promote the film properly, with just over a month to create a marketing campaign and materials. Meanwhile Mr. Eisner looks out of step in rejecting a film that has been embraced by the Cannes audiences and the festival jury and that seems certain to be a moneymaker. He was skewered in a column in Variety on Monday in which Peter Bart wrote: "Now that `Fahrenheit 9/11' is becoming arguably the season's hottest item, Michael Eisner and his cohorts will be asked gain why they dumped what will surely be a very profitable film and why they did so in a manner designed to maximize Michael Moore's exalted profile as the artist as victim?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 the funny thing is that people talk about all his self agrandizing, and self promotion, which there is some of, but i think his prominance is a result of his detractors constantly attacking him far more than they do his points, which gives the impression that his movies are all about michael moore, which isn't the case. yes he narrates them, yes he appears in them, but every word he speaks, or ever scene he is in, is making a much, much larger point about something else. i think he very much still see's himself as being your average blue collar worker, so when he puts himself into situations, it's done so with the idea that he is speaking on behalf of all those who can't, not that he is speaking for 'michael moore'. that's of course just my oppinion, but anyone that has done as much as he has can't possibly be doing it for vanity. i got a chance to hear him speak in a very small club in detroit a couple years ago, before bowling for columbine was out. and granted it was only one thing, but i assure you, dude is about as humble as anyone in his position could possibly be. he dresses like complete shit, he's a total slob, he put's his personal email address out there for anyone to contact him, he admits full well that he has no more than a high school education, and that anyone with the same desire could do what he has. i think the self promotion angle is really just another attempt at smoke and mirrors that the right uses to cast him off, and alot of left wing people sort of accept it as truth, because, well, for the most part, left wing people are not as tyranically ignorant or simple minded as right wing folks. of course i could be wrong. one thing moore talked about when i saw him, which may or may not be in one of his books, was that while in school (i think it was a boarding school) he went to a snack machine to get a candy bar. next to the machine was a sign for an essay contest about how great of a country america was....and then right on the sign is also said WHITES ONLY. he felt that was a complete crock of shit, wrote an essay about their contest was bullshit, won the contest, and because of his essay, laws were passed barring discrimination from any academic contests. i know my retelling is not exact, and i actually think the eventual outcome was alot larger than i'm making it sound, but i'd rather error on the side of caution. anyway, my point is that dude is just a guy who has always pointed out the absolute retarded shit that the rest of us sort of blindly accept, no matter how much we complain about it. (thats all) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mental invalid Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Originally posted by seeking the funny thing is that people talk about all his self agrandizing, and self promotion, which there is some of, but i think his prominance is a result of his detractors constantly attacking him far more than they do his points, which gives the impression that his movies are all about michael moore, which isn't the case. fair point right there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_El Mamerro Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Originally posted by seeking please find me examples of either lies or 'distorted truths', because i've seen alot of moore's stuff, been at public speaking engagements and read several books and i've yet to find a single actual lie, and very seldom even a severe distortion of truth. i'll give you occasional embellishments, or more to the point, blowing somewhat minor things out of proportion, but his are FAR less embellished than the 'truths' you get from rush or oreilly (who both claim themselves to be champions of truth, yet are constantly spitting flat out uncontestable lies). Knock yourself out. Sorry dude, he definitely delves into Rush/O'Reilly/Coulter territory sometimes. He's not all over the topic spectrum like they are, which is why you may correctly consider them worse liars, but the method of manipulation is not very different, and it drives me up the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_El Mamerro Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Oh, and I don't really understand all the accusations of arrogance and self-agrandizing. I have never, not once, gotten that vibe from him. He seems to be truly concerned with the subject and it seems to me he always puts it up front instead of himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dusty Lipschitz Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Godard, who hadn't seen Fahrenheit 9/11, compared it ... god, this shit bugs me. like the reviewers and white house who havent watched it, have taken a stand, and have shit to say about it... im glad he won. i dont view michael moore's material as the absolute truth, but its good to have someone screaming at the other end of the mainstream spectrum. perfect=no. needed=yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 www.michaelmoore.com seems to be having a little more trafic than expected. <I cant get on to see the trailer> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERIZENO Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Re: from the new york times Originally posted by mental invalid In this case Mr. Moore and the Weinsteins have been making complex demands on competing bidders. Mr. Moore insists that whoever distributes the movie do so in July, presumably when it can still have an impact on the November election. A DVD release before November would double that impact. shit ... if they work those dates out it will prove to be a good thing. lets all keep positive thoughts on it. (or as some would say keep it in your prayers, which to me is the same shit) I have hate for Eisner anyway, this is just icing on the cake for me to get to watch. But he keeps up this shit and consistantly looks like the Bush whore he must be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Originally posted by El Mamerro Knock yourself out. Sorry dude, he definitely delves into Rush/O'Reilly/Coulter territory sometimes. He's not all over the topic spectrum like they are, which is why you may correctly consider them worse liars, but the method of manipulation is not very different, and it drives me up the wall. i only clicked on a couple of those things, but even with what i read, and granted i am biased towards what he's saying (if not moore himself) his embellishments are still alot less outrageous than his right wing counterparts. i won't go into into details because it's preaching to the choir, but i've yet to find an outright lie (even in the links) and the things he did stretch a bit on, are still well within reason, given the precident set by our major media outlets. but yes, it does drive me up the wall as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.