I think Michael Moore As Presented By His Critics is a left wing Rush, but not the man himself. I am neither a huge fan or huge critic of Moore, and find him annoyingly one note in person, as in interviews, on Politically Incorrect, etc. But his films are nowhere near as blatantly biased or prioritizing effect over substance as Rush is. And what's more, they're often misrepresented, usually by people who never even saw them. I can't count the number of times I've seen Bowling For Columbine described as being a left wing appeal for gun laws, which it is in no way, shape, or form. I am anti-gun: Michael Moore is not. That's a typiucal example. While BFC did contain what would have to be described as left leaning sentiment regarding big business vs. the common man type stuff, that was more of a backdrop, and the main issue: violence, was never attributed to guns alone ( in fact one of his points-inocrrect IMO- was to refute this angle) but was partly an open question and partly ascribed to the ususal target for left wing nuts: the media. Attributing the anti-gun thing to BFC , and then using that as part of a construct of an image of him as a LW Rush is typical of people who criticize without having even seen it. If he's not with us, he must be against us. Not saying that that'ls the only way to explain the tag, just an obvious one for those who've discussed and analyzed his films and their import/credibility while have obviously never seen them.
I'm not entirely qualified to comment on his recent work. I haven't seen the new one or Columbine. I thought Roger and Me was excellent and I loved TV Nation and The Awful Truth -- in fact my theater company did a segment for AT in Huntsville. They were the ones dressed as cheerleaders, cheering an execution, back in 2000. I don't agree that Moore's the Left's Rush though. I think he has considerably more wit and actually more passion as well. He also never resorts to the Chelsea's ugly, Gore spits kind of stuff. His arguments, even if they're flawed (again, I haven't seen the last two movies), are merit-based. And frankly I'm sick of the cult of objectivity. No one is objective. I believe that Moore came by his ideology honestly (Rush, too). Dismissing arguments simply because they're partisan to an ideology is just silly to me. All arguments are based in ideology. If the Right wants to argue that Reagan had the best approach to the Cold War or that abortion is murder or that affirmative action actually sets blacks back or that deficit spending is good for the economy, I won't dismiss those arguments simply because of who makes them. And each of those arguments have merits -- I don't agree with any of them (except the abortion one which I half agree with), but they're solid arguments. When someone dismisses a whole film because they found a couple discrepancies or felt manipulated a couple times in the last one -- or worse because the director's fat -- or double-worse equates dissent with treason -- I dismiss them. When someone like Rush repeatedly calls Chelsea Clinton ugly, I dismiss him. When the entire right wing dismisses a series of long, serious policy speeches from the most recent vice president simply because they are passionately delivered -- entirely refusing to argue the merits -- I dismiss them. I don't dismiss right wing arguments -- I dismiss right wing non-arguments. I've yet to hear a single good case against the things we've heard from Clarke, O'Neill, Joe Wilson, Greg Thielmann. Instead all we get is oh, well, they were out of the loop, they're disgruntled. All we get is smear. Argue the merits. Moore isn't Rush. He argues the merits. I'd love to hear someone argue back instead of obsessing over discrediting him.
Well...I'll disagree with you, MacBeth, on the amount of bias in his films and on his substance over effect. In fact, i'd say it's the opposite. BFC was one of the most disappointing films i have ever seen. Sam's description of 'a series of skits' is dead on. I'm a lefty at heart. (voting Green or NDP this yr). I went to see Noem Chomsky last summer, and while i disagreed with much of what he said, i found him insightful, intelligent and observant. Can't say the same for Moore. The controversy over his films, certainly feeds his notoriety. But that's fueled just as much by the Right -- who try to discredit everything, as it is by the Left, who portray him as some sort of messiah. It all feeds on itself, until somehow, his films become 'must -see' if you want to even discuss certain issues. I find myself wondering if anyone else sees that 'he's not all that.' That somehow, between his critics, and those who want to shout down his critics we've created this media monster who simply can't be ignored. It's like we've all been played. And it's all good for Him. If you agree with him -- go see the film for affirmation. If you don't -- well you'd better see the film or you've no right to disagree...And i don't tend to think that his work really warrants this kind of attention.
Thank's for the reply, Batman. I haven't seen Roger and Me -- and i really should. I understand it is well done. If you haven't seen BFC, you should. Like i said in my previous post, i was extremely disappointed. I found the manipulations and half-truths to be too pervasive to be simply dismissed. More importantly though, i found the movie unfocussed. Not a 'bad' movie -- but hardly the powerful piece i had hoped for. And i'm not suggesting Moore's a total hack here. I just find his celebrity unjustified. And keep thinking we should perhaps peek behind the curtain. He's a product of the media, and he's working it for all its worth.
I don't think you can compare Moore to Rush Limbaugh. They have some similarities here and there, but Moore is a single issue at a time kind of guy. He makes a film, talks about the issues in the film during promotion and then once the film has run its course, he basically disappears for a while until his next film when it's a different issue that's being presented. While he does show up now and again on opinion shows even during his "downtime", his not being on the air day after day after day changes the way he can approach issues (oftentimes resulting in a larger scope than if he had to react daily to the news of the day). When someone dismisses a whole film because they found a couple discrepancies or felt manipulated a couple times in the last one -- or worse because the director's fat -- or double-worse equates dissent with treason -- I dismiss them. The problem I have had with Moore in the past that allows me to dismiss a lot of his supposed points is that he makes a point and then oftentimes has to "prove" his point with distortions and outright lies. If his arguments were substantive and true, he wouldn't have to manipulate or lie to provide the support. The support would be there. I don't care that he has a point-of-view and makes himself a character in his films and is closer to Ashton Kutcher than Erroll Morris in style. That's just the way he chooses to make his films, and there's nothing wrong with using a style other than the "traditional" documentary style. But I just don't understand the point of the films. His films are apparently trying to send a message, but the message must be wrong if it takes lying to back them up. Lying to back up a point is just as intellectually false as attacking the messenger rather than the argument. If you can dismiss someone because they don't address the points, it's just as acceptable to dismiss someone who backs up their points with lies and distortions masquerading as facts. (And, to add to this, I don't know of any specific distortions or outright lies in Fehrenheit 9/11. I'm just commenting on his history).
I know But Batman's a political junkie! And he's formed an opinion on Moore without having seen his most influential work. And I'm full of inconsistencies .
Right on the first point, wrong on the second. I formed my opinion before those works were made. It may change once I've seen them (and I will), but for now it's almost all I've got to go on. I say almost because I have read a great deal of criticism of those works and, while many say there are distortions or manipulations, no one's argued that he doesn't confine himself to arguing merits. I've never heard him accusing of avoiding an argument entirely in favor of an attempt to discredit the arguer. Give me an example of where he's done something akin to dismissing every argument made by Clarke or Gore by saying well, he's just disgruntled or well, he screams too much. Give me an example of something Moore's done that's akin to Rush calling Chelsea ugly. If you can't, he's not the Left's Rush. That's all I was responding to. I'll let you know what I think of those movies when I've seen them.
The series of skits comment, while possibly valid, is a stylistic critique rather than a refutation of argument. As i said, the example I gave of how many seem to arrive at their version of Michael Moore is not the only way that conclusion can be reached, but is a common one. I have found his films uneven but powerful. I have felt that the criticisms of his works have usually been about minor points overblown ( ex.the Heston interview, which was THE criticism of Moore for a long time, and wasn't bad at all till the very end, IMO) or from people who haven't seen it. My personal problem with Moore, aside from his somewhat grating personality, is that, even when failing to arrive at a conclusion, he is somewhat inflexible en route. He seems to me to be a man who genuinely arrives at what he feels is the right conclusion, but once there is impervious to alternatives. That such a man might tend to extremes is not suprising, IMO. It is often stated that he lies to support his points, as mr. paige has done here repeatedly, and it's somewhat true, but not in essence, IMO. I feel he often makes a point, validates it with actual support, and then gets caught up in hyperbole when trying to further hammer it home. I doubt he sees it as outright lying, but probably views it as film centered stylistic portralyals of actual, albeit less condensed/film friendly 'facts'. This is contrary to Rush who often makes it clear that his entire point is winning a given argument or slamming a given target, and would, you are sure, argue the other side just as vehemently if the political winds came from the other direction. I find Moore more comparable to a less narrative version of Spike Lee, with the same need to use whatever means possible to hammer home points again and again, and with the same seeming inability to consider alternatives. Lastly, while I'm sure they're out there, I have yet to see autmotatic shout-downs of Moore critics other than those who've clearly not seen the film themselves. i haven't seen 9-11, so can't comment, but I would say that the criticism of Moore surrounding Columbine was a lot more knee jerk and initially much less informed than the support. Look back to the thread in here surrounding his Oscar speech, and you'll see what I mean. I am all for criticizing Moore, and am uncomfortable with him becoming seen, to some as one of the prominent voices of the anti-war movment, which doesn't need his kind of inflexible hyperbole to make it's point. But a comparison with Rush is unfair and innacurrate, IMO.
Well, he did dismiss with a wave of his hand and a reference to Republican groups trying to silence him the entire question of whether advertisements for his film could violate McCain-Feingold. But that may have simply been the format of the show he was on where I saw him (The Daily Show) and an awaremeness of the time afforded to such segments (along with the fact that he probably hasn't had time to research McCain-Feingold and/or come up with a lie or distortion to support his point)..
"may" have been? Yeah, I think it's a pretty safe bet that neither Moore nor Stewart nor the viewing audience has any desire to analyze the bounds of BCRA as applied to Farenheit 9/11 and how it intersects with commercial speech. You're still irked about "cold dead hands", aren't you? If the NRA didn't want to come off looking like a bunch of creepy freaks, they shouldn't have their president say it, regardless of when or where it's said.
Nearly the entire segment on the NRA was distorted and fabricated. It wasn't simply the interview with Heston that was the problem. If he was restricted to telling the straightforward truth, he would've had to cut nearly everything relating to the NRA. "may" have been? Yeah, I think it's a pretty safe bet that neither Moore nor Stewart nor the viewing audience has any desire to analyze the bounds of BCRA as applied to Farenheit 9/11 and how it intersects with commercial speech. So basically the defense is that he doesn't dismiss simply dismiss critics and the times that he does, it's not his fault. It's because of the show or the audience. I mean, he could have said something like, "They've got an interesting interpretation of the law, and we're going to look into it to see whether they have a case at all. From what I know, I don't think they do" rather than simply dismissing the essentially dismissing the entire argument as part of the right wing efforts against him.
I just don't go in for the whole Hard Copy-style editing tricks to distort the truth. I don't think the "cold dead hands" line is all that creepy and wouldn't have cared if it were in the movie. It's been all over the media at other times. But Moore specifically placed in a way that made it appear as if Heston was being defiant toward Denver officials in the wake of Columbine and that's an outright distortion. I mean, if Kerry gets elected this Fall, and I play tape of Moore saying "Shame on You Mr. President" from his Oscar speech in the middle of story about Kerry's new program to raise the minimum wage, people might well consider that a distortion. But on this board, I would be celebrated.
It was more than that. As you stated, many people just didn't get the point of BFC and assumed it was a critique of gun legislation. After all the press this movie received, it's a pretty big failure if people leave not understanding what you were trying to say! Does not bode well for a documentary maker if your point wasn't made. I've touched a nerve with the Rush comparison. So i take it back. And -- meekly-- confess, i've never listened to Rush. It's not carried in my market. My point was that Moore is more flash than substance and not worthy, in my opinion, of all the reverence being showered on him. I used Rush as a flash over substance comparison from the Right -- but consensus seems to be that Rush is far more extreme. So i'll take your word. THe Heston thing in BFC was the least bothersome point of the movie, from my perspective. Hyping the NRA meetings, failing to acknowledge that the meeting in Columbine was a scheduled, and required AGM that had been significantly scaled back and spicing together bits from different speeches, were much much worse. It's not his politics i disagree with. It's his filmmaking. I like documentaries. I didn't like his movie. And i don't like his showcasing -- that ol' grating personality thing MacB mentioned. I suppose it's better to have him inside your tent, pissing out, then outside, pissing in -- but i just don't see the fascination. Gotta run. see you next week!
bnb: I'm not sure who (here at least) is showering reverence on Moore. I know I'm not. I think he's a great satirist -- political and otherwise -- as evidenced by TV Nation and the couple of eps of Awful Truth I saw, and I thought Roger and Me was really great, but that's hardly reverent praise. I do appreciate what Moore's trying to do with this movie, since few on the Left have the balls to stand up for what they believe in. Of course, the few who do get tossed out for raising their voices, having donated money to the party they're closest to or LOL being fat. In this political season I reserve my only reverence for the speeches Gore's given. They've all been dead on and the obvious proof is that virtually no one has contradicted them, preferring instead to just call him crazy like they did with Dean and McCain.
Wow, you are reading way too much into that....I think your visceral distaste for Moore is influencing your perception. I also don't see why you keep insisting that its unusual for somebody to be disturbed by an old man waving a gun around talking about armed rebellion against the government. It might be tradition, but a lot of people think it's weird.
I just saw it here in College Station. It was packed, but not sold out as I didn't see anybody sitting in the front row. Everybody clapped when it was over. There's one scene I'd like to point out, where the previously mentioned mother who lost her son is in DC for a conference. When she has a break she calls Moore and tells him she's going to the White House. Walking towards the White House, she see some lady has a little protest going on and she's saying stuff like "children are dying in Iraq." The mother goes up to her and says "my child died in Iraq." The protest lady then says something like "Young Americans are dying in Iraq too!" Then some lady comes out of nowhere and says "this is all staged, whatever." The mother then tells her her son died in Iraq. The "this is staged" lady then says "oh yeah, where in Iraq," with an attitude like the mother was lying and she's about to prove it. So she tells her he died in Karbalah in April I think it was and says "Karbalah is not a stage, my son's death is not a stage." As she walks away from her the lady yells out "blame Al Queda!" I felt really bad for her. I mean, is anybody's first instinct when they meet somebody who says they lost a child in a war that they're lying about it?
The 16 million NRA members don't care, and the "scary" part is the mantra of these millions of gun owners is: "...out of my cold, dead hands!" It means the Feinsteins, Shumers, Kennedys, Clintons, and Kerrys of the world will absolutely bring the end to America as we know it if their goal is administered...I for one take these words with earnest, as millions do that the only way they take it is in a glory of bullets coming at you!
Here is my revised weapons list:....Partly due to Moore's bombastic attack on the NRA, the gun ban will expire Sept. 13th 2004 Arsenal SSR56-2 (AK47) in 7.62 x 39 (black stock) Arsenal SSR56-2 (AK47) in 7.62 x 39 (wood stock) Bushmaster M16A2 type 20 "(semi-auto) in 5.56 x 45 - to get after 9/13 Bushmaster M4A3 type 16 "(semi-auto) in 5.56 x 45 - to get after 9/13 Wilson Combat Scattergun in 12 Gauge Glock 22 in .40 - to get 15 rd. mags after 9/13 Glock 22 in .40 - to get 15 rd. mags after 9/13 Glock 31 in .357 - to get 15 rd. mags after 9/13 Kimber TLE/RL in .45 Wilson Combat CQB/RL in .45 Thank you Moore for helping me stay feverent on my ideal long gun/hand gun arsenal for target shooting and self-defense
