I will boycott anything that pig Michael Moore does

mrpaige, the most interesting elements about BFC was its attempt at probing the level of fear and violence that appears to be so prominent in America. The movie doesn't provide any easy answers, in fact provokes more questions than providing answers, and even pretty much dismisses reducing poverty or gun-control as a big parts of reducing violent crime much quicker than I or most left leaning folks probably think he should have dismissed them. The movie also neither portrays any political movement or party with the answers. More about this (what I think was interesting about the movie) is elaborated earlier in this thread. Like I said if you didn't see the movie you missed out on some thought provoking elements. I you didn't watch anything with some manipulated spin in it, I don't know what would be left for you to watch or listen too. At least BFC didn't provide the easy answers to complex problems like the NRA (more guns), Rush, or many other political hacks or hack groups try to advocate, many of who are even less upfront about their spin and underlying motivations.

Regardless of your feeling about Moore, his style, or his politics, if his movie increases debate about the roots of violence and fear (if you buy this connection Moore makes) in our country and its consequences regardless of your political persuasions I think that is productive, and a lot better use of your time than going to 99% of the other movies out there.

 

I think if one wants to increase the debate, it's important to start with the truth. Manipulating the truth, in a documentary that claims to present the truth, in order to misrepresent certain people or opinions is not the way to go, either from Moore or from anybody else.

But I guess you support my idea of rearranging your quotes to manipulate the truth.

I'm sure if I tried, I could edit together some speeches from Clinton that somehow come to show how he supports lynching blacks. Would that be contributing to the debate about race relations if I made it into a movie?

I mean, I guess as long as it increases, the debate, lying and manipulation is okay. That's the real message of the Bowling for Columbine debate. It's okay to lie and cheat in order to get your political view across.

There's a difference between spin and editing a speech together to say something that was never said.

It's not spin to say something happened when it didn't. That's just a lie. It's not spin to say that something is true that isn't. That's a lie.

I could have tape of me walking by your house and claim that I'm reading a sign on it that says "Death to the Blacks" and that you have a crank lab running in your basement that's the cause of so much violence in your neighborhood. And then I could edit together tapes of you to say things that you never said.

But I guess that would just be spin and it'd be okay.

And by the way, I had sex with Morgan Fairchild. That's not a lie. It's just spin.

 

When did Moore edit and cut what people said to manipulate the truth? Point out this unbiased review or tell me that you saw the movie and can point out cuts and edits in the film. You make it sound like that episode of the Simpsons where Homer is accused of sexually harrasing the baby sitter. Did he edit Heston's speech to make him sound like a racist?


Homer: Somebody had to take the babysitter home. Then I noticed she was sitting on [splice] her sweet [splice] can. [splice] -- o I grab her -- [splice] sweet can. [splice] Oh, just thinking about [splice] her [splice] can [splice] I just wish I had he --[splice] sweet [splice] sweet [splice] s-s-sweet [splice] can.

 

You continue to avoid discussing the elements of the movie myself and others think are most interesting. That makes me think you haven't seen the movie, don't really know what it was about, and are only discussing what other people have said about the movie.

---Yes, if you think this is main message you either didn't see the movie or saw it but were so hellbent on watching for inconsistencies you missed the key themes about fear & violence. The movie isn't foremost about a political view, political party, nor offers a political answer.

Politicians and movie makers lie, distort, or omit (to the point it is basically a lie) all the time. Do I support them or Moore doing so, no. Does it mean his product doesn't have anything when viewed with a healthy does of skepticism and when the main point provides more questions than its answers and avoids any simple political soluation by either side, well, I guess that is up to you to decide. Further, for every Moore there are 3 rightest hacks doing the same thing with similar pretenses of speaking the objective truth. Yes, it would be better if they all were more intellectually honest, but it is harder and harder to find politicians or political hacks who even try to approach things with fairness even if they start with extreme premises (Will, Safire and Ivans come to mind as notable exceptions though from very different political positions). I suppose you Mrpaige could start a boycott of all the folks doing this--this honestly probably would be a good public service--starting with the one probably the most influential with the widest audience in America, Rush.

BTW I hope your sig doesn't stick with my manipulated quotes--I would not do so for you.

 

Hey, I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh a long time ago for the very same reasons. I want my objectivity to actually make an attempt to be objective.

If Moore has acknowledged he was making a fictional film, there would be no problem. A movie like Oliver Stone's JFK, which plays very fast and loose with the truth, doesn't concern me because it is a fictional account surrounding a real event. Had Moore done the same thing, there wouldn't be a problem. But he rails about truth and then refuses to present it. That's not a good thing and that shouldn't be celebrated, whether he's doing it or someone else is.

But if we're going to celebrate him for his manipulation of the truth, shouldn't we also celebrate it when someone else does it? You can't be against Rush Limbaugh doing it and for Michael Moore doing it, can you?

As for the premise in the movie, yes those issues about why the United States is the way it is in terms of gun violence, etc. are important topics that need to be discussed. But discussions needs to come from the truth. Making Heston a villain by editing his speeches together to say something that wasn't said undermines any good point he makes in the film.

And Oski, as with every other debate, I'm sure whatever source I print will be seen as biased. I can only offer what has already been offered. The transcripts of the speeches, the reports from the press from the time of the speeches, et al. That hasn't been enough for you, so there's no real point in continuing is there.

Just like Moore, you've made up your mind that the truth isn't important. It's all about the spin.

 

I'm just trying to stimulate debate. I should get an Oscar for it.

Or is it only right when Michael Moore does it?

 

DS-
Let me disagree here. I'm not sure if it's Moore or his handlers but he has been referred to as a political activist who uses movies as his canvas. I think that is reasonable to assume since he is making such a strong political statment last week. Now if you buy that are you now say the BFC isn't about a political view? My point is he makes movies for a purpose, a political purpose. He is getting exactly the reaction he wants out of America. He has people now looking more closely (or for many of us looking for the 1st time).

Of course if you don't buy he isn't a political activist you can assume he is a SOB who is taking advantage of a situation to make money.

Either way I have no respect for him and I can't wait for this 10 minutes of fame to blow over for him.

 

He's not a ten minutes of fame guy no matter how you feel about him. That's like saying Sean Penn is a ten minutes of fame person because he went to Iraq.

 

Just for the record, though, Desert Scar, I am not going to keep the signature as is. As a matter of fact, I'm going to change it now because my point is made.

You didn't like it when someone took something you said and manipulated it. Why should you support someone doing that to someone else? Just because it supports your world view?

Personally, I don't ever like it. Not when Michael Moore does it. Not when Rush Limbaugh does it. Not even if it stirs debate on a topic that needs debating (because this is exactly what happens. We can't talk about the impact of Moore's thesis because he undermined everything he did by playing fast and loose with the truth in what was presented as a truthful film). The truth is important, and it will always be important to me. I don't care how much it helps whatever cause I believe in, I will never think it's okay to lie or manipulate the truth to support that cause.

And that's my beef with Michael Moore and his "documentary".

 

Accepting for arguments sake your premise that what Moore did to Heston was just like what you did for me & Moore in your examples, that certainly isn't right or justifiable. I never said it was. I said BFC is a thought provoking movie with an interesting central premise on violence and fear in our country worth viewing & debating, nothing more, nothing less. Whether he slanders Heston/the NRA or whether he more or less is reasonably on target in depicting them--I'll leave to others to debate--either way it is fairly tangential to the central premise about violence and fear, you can seperate the message (or art/fiction as you seem to insist) from the source.

 

I'll accept that, though I disagree. I personally have trouble accepting anything within the film knowing that at least part of it are pure fiction.

If we know part of it is a lie, how do we know that all of it isn't? If the facts produced to ask the questions are inaccurate, it's not very easy to eventually get to the answers. Even though Moore makes no real attempt to get to the answers (though some would argue he does blame the media for the problems), the idea that his questions may be faulty because they aren't arrived at honestly ruins the whole film for me.

In short, if he's lying about what we know he's lying about, how do we know if anything is accurate? And if we don't know if the questions are accurate, then we can't go about attempting to answer them.

But I see your point, even though I disagree.

 

That is fine if that is your beef--that you think he plays so loose and fast with facts that he kills his message. Honestly I don't have time to compare Heston/NRA speeches and presentations to come to this determination for myself--but I'll go ahead and assume you are right and view his work from that skeptical angle. But I'll still view his work aqnd hope most others do because it is thought provoking and shuns easy answers and the questions are so important there must be debate.

4chukie--I know Moore has a political bent, and though I have only seen BFC once--honestly I can't tell you which political solution he offers. Can you? He clearly doesn't think more guns, less guns, or less poverty are the key factors leading to our violence, he thinks fear and media are key, but nor does he offer solutions there. Again he dismisses any simple policy or political position about a really central, problematic, issue for all of us. He brings up more questions than simple solutions most political parties or special interests would offer--and this I think is a service.

 

Of course, that can be frustrating in and of itself. There's no reason, except perhaps to grind personal/political axes, to do what was done. There are plenty of ways to stimulate the debate without resorting to that sort of thing.

And, to be honest, I think the questions would get more play if the movie couldn't be dismissed because of it's trouble with the truth.

So, in a way, Moore has done the issue a disservice by not making sure his film was factually accurate (he can offer opinions that I would disagree with, but that's quite different than not having the film be factually accurate).

 

To a lot of the population he is a 10 minuter. I have honestly never heard or read any of his stuff before this. Not that his name was totally foreign to me but ujtil last week I had never noticed him. I'm sure I'm not that isolated that I'm the only one.

At least for me this guy will fade away. The sooner the better, I hope.