As you probebly know, Michael Moore (Bowling For Coloumbine), has released the new 'documentry" Fireanhight 9/11 (kill me, its spelled wrong). What do you think of his films?
I don't look at them as documentries. He cuts out a lot of the stuff (like in Bowling for Coloumbine where he tries to prove all Canadians leave there doors unlocked all the time.) He bases his facts on the truth, but he edits it so that it looks like he's right.
What are your views?
Fine Garbage since 2003.
CURRENT PROJECT:
-Paying off a massive amount of debt in college loans.
-Working in television.
Michael Moore is a genious, I doubt you have seen any of his films but have been reading right wing propaganda. Also, Fahrenheit 9/11 is not being released until the 25th.
My opinion is that he loves America, and wants to make it a better country. Tell me Lazarus, have you seen any of his documentaries? If so, we can further this discussion.
Steve Zissou: Anne-Marie, do all the interns get Glocks?
Anne-Marie: No, they have to share one.
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
4th June, 2004 at 18:29:15 -
i've never had the chance to see Columbine. Farenheit sounds interesting too.
maybe i'll download them, after all, i'm sure Moore wouldn't mind me broadening my mind
I think Bowling For Columbine was interesting, but I strongly disagree with many of his POVs, not just in that movie, also on his website and other things he has released or said publically.
I havent heard about that other movie, but I'm sure it will be more of the same of his narrow-mindedness.
Mike¿
"Now I guess we're... 'Path-E-Tech Management'" -Dilbert
He is a moron. Columbine's funnier moments were ok. But Farenheit 9/11 is a piece of tripe. He tries to make things look worse than they are. Like when george Bush is told about the twin towers. There was nothing he could do about it, and if he stopped reading to the children he would have roused suspicion. But Moore just films the clock ticking. If anyone just stops to think about the situation Bush was in they'd see that he was doing the right thing. But Moore just twists it because he is stupid.
Aroused suspicion? I'm sure the kids heard about 9/11 only half an hour after, Bush could haven't done more harm by leaving. And you can't say it's a peice of tripe because it hasn't been released yet except for in the Palme D'or 2004 Cannes, where it won. Moore twists it because it's twistable.
Steve Zissou: Anne-Marie, do all the interns get Glocks?
Teapot: it's interesting how you judge Fahrenheit 9/11 without possibly seeing it (unless you yourself was one of the judges?).
Anyway, Bowling for Columbine was pretty good. It brought up a lot of interesting facts (such as the number of gun murders in America and Canada). That "History of America" cartoon was also hilarious.
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
6th June, 2004 at 09:28:56 -
you can download the Caenes version of Farenheit 9/11 on overnet.
not that i endorse doing so, of course
edit: i just watched columbine and i thought it was very interesting. i do agree that he tried to twist some things - i certainly didn't buy the canadian nutcases who don't lock their doors. but you can't argue with the brute facts, which i think is what he's trying to say anyway: the yanks kill each other in drastic proportions, and there has to be something to blame. whether he's managed to succesfully place the blame on anything is a matter of personal opinion.
JP: I've seen Bowling For Coloumbine, and I want to see Fahrenheit 9/11. I still think he twists almost EVERYTHING he puts in his documenteries. I saw BFC because it was funny to watch some guy walk around telling lies. But the whole interview with the Hillbilly guy was pretty funny.
Fine Garbage since 2003.
CURRENT PROJECT:
-Paying off a massive amount of debt in college loans.
-Working in television.
Pete Nattress Cheesy Bits img src/uploads/sccheesegif
Registered 23/09/2002
Points 4811
8th June, 2004 at 18:44:04 -
moore doesn't tell bare faced lies. he presents his version of the truth, albeit twisted and biased. all journalists do, it's human instinct. the actual truth will always be marred. i'm not fussed, his documentaries don't affect me, i'm not living in the USA and never will. they can shoot each other all they want... it's just interesting to investigate why they're doing it.
If moore is trying to convince you of his point of view, why should he have to show you anything other than HIS truth? If you want your side told, make your own documentary. BTW his books are good.
Edited by the Author.
Steve Zissou: Anne-Marie, do all the interns get Glocks?
It's sort of hard not to be blatantly anti-Bush these days. I mean it's absurd how all of the problems he's having now were so predictable that just about everyone saw it coming except him. I mean, the outgoing Chief of Staff of the United States Army General Eric Shinseki had original estimates that the amount of troops needed to stabilize Iraq post-war was several hundred thousand more than the number that Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz, and gang decided on. Infact, the whole war on Iraq was a pretty dumb move in itself. As John Stewart proclaimed a few days ago to author Steven F. Wright,
"I'll give you 4 characteristics of a country...Developing weapons of mass destruction, Inflammatory rhetoric against the United States, harbouring Terrorists, and Oppression of their people..you can't tell me what country I'm talking about, and that's the problem with going to war"
and yet another John Stewart Quote
"The Bush Doctrine: Holding regimes that harbour terrorists to account. Which also contains the Bush Asterisk, *Doctrine not valid in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, or Pakistan"
While this is off topic I'm trying to explain that maybe Moore's side of view isn't so radical, except to those who are so patriotic that they're blinded to the fact their president is an idiot and puppet to the hawks in his government (9/11 was what Wolfawitz was waiting for, his "Pearl Harbour" as his doctrine was rejected by both Clinton and George Sr's governments. I'll finish off with two more quotes (because they explain it better than I could ever hope to)
"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability." George Bush Sr, A World Transformed, 1998
And one summing up the Republican party's ideals, Corporation and the Rich man! (but don't worry we'll destroy social welfare systems so we can give the middle class a little tax break too!)
"This is an impressive crowd. The haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base." -George W. Bush
I found Bowling for Columbine a very interesting documentary when I watched it, but I do believe at times, moore is heavily biased. The problem is that he's not overtly and openly so as much as (for example) conservative firebrands such as Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh. He's more of a liberal version of Bill O`Reilly, a "fair and honest" view on things, that is, HIS view the way HE sees it. Both kind of annoy me in that sense. Luckily, moore hardly goes on the offensive in a manner that would seem overly rude to the average american. That is good, because I think the less solid ammunition the conservatives have against democrats (and ultimately all liberals), the better. Keep 'em sounding crazy without us going down to that level.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Mike 
¿
Edited by the Author.
GO! 
