06-18-2007, 04:11 AM
>I have seen Fahrenheit and bowling...it didn't change my mind, as I said, I didn't see new facts (which as you say were lies) I don't understand this criticism.
Here's my criticism in very simple terms. The following is the key paragraph for me, taken from this link. It's near the end of his letter.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/...Date=2007-05-17
"But no, I'm the one who now has to hire lawyers and sneak my documentary out of the country just so people can see a friggin' movie. I mean, it's just a movie! What on earth could I have placed on celluloid that would require such a nonsensical action against me? "
This is more than just a case of semantics to me, on one hand Moore calls his work a documentary. Right on the other, he says it's just a movie. So which is it, a fictional movie? SLAP! A documentary? SLAP! Is it just a movie?! SLAP! Is it a documentary?! SLAP!
It's BOTH! It's a movie AND a documentary...sob sob sob.
Forget it 'friend' Eppie, it's Chinatown.
You think I disagree with his conclusions, so therefore I have an axe to grind. You think I perhaps see the 2 columbine shooters as a demonic spawn, or maybe a case of spontaneous satanic possession out to harm the innocents?
Guess again, 'friend'. I think the issues in Moore's work deserves all the scrutiny and attention, and honest dialogue and action because they -are- important issues. So what's the point of mentioning that Walmart selling the bullets, and bringing up Lockheed Martin? Oh yeah, Lockheed Martin builds those awful missiles used in wars so therefore it's probably karmic payback that the shooting happened in a town where there's a Lockheed Martin facility. And Walmart, well come on they're just plain eeeeeveill.
Say, where was the serious question regarding the parents relationship to the 2 teens? Where was the serious questions on whether or not there was bullying and abuse that drove the 2 students into using violence as their only and final way out? Where was the questions on the mental state of the two shooters? Nah, it's just a movie. Let's just show how doddering and very possibly racist Chuck Heston is. And how much of a vulture the NRA is. After all this is a documentary.
And what the hell was the point of showing Paul Wolfowitz combing his hair with his own saliva, to elicit the numerous EEEEWWW! I heard in the theatres? People like Wolfowitz is contemptible enough to me without that clip. But hey, it's just a movie so no one should take it too seriously right?
What's next, let's demonstrate Bush as an inept leader by showing how comical he looks and acts physically? Yeeesh, let's just break out the phrenology calipers then, and show why Dick Cheney is naturally predisposed to shooting someone in the face with a shotgun, because Cheney has the brain pan measurements of a criminal.
I cringed at that scene in Fahrenheit where the interviewed mother of a dead soldier was openly weeping at the gates of the white house.
You want to know why? Because I did not see Moore waving the camera off, or even offering the woman a hug. All I saw was someone making a decision to keep the camera rolling, for what exactly? To show the terrible human price the war, or almost any war in history (just or not) is taking? I honestly doubt that at this point. If anything I see it more as someone filming a car wreck, and hoping to cash in when they send the tape to 'Most Extreme: CAUGHT ON TAPE!'.
That's what I find distasteful, 'friend' Eppie. It sure looked like Moore was turning that excruciating moment into something 'entertaining'. Hey it's just a movie right? The woman was probably only acting one hell of a performance. She should be given an Oscar for best actress. And if it's a documentary, well it's simply a case of cinema verite' right?
The issues Moore uses (and at this point I mean that literally, seems to me like he's using these issues the same way a pimp uses 'street meats' to earn some green) in his work is too damn important to be flouted off as 'just a movie'. If you're going to call your work a documentary, have the integrity and balls to back it up. And not alternatively hide under the 'it's just a movie' shield when some things don't add up.
The issues used in Moore's work deserves more than that.
ps.
Dear Eppie, feel free to call people like me pro-American idiot Bush fanatics and whatever, since I obviously disagree with Moore's -methods-, I therefore MUST be an unwavering supporter of King George the Second and state made propaganda right? If you're not with me, you're against me right? I gotta say 'friend' Eppie, I think you're far too hard on yourself. I doubt a real moron possess the type of mental atheletics needed for that kind of spectacular leap to conclusions. I mean, you wrote a gem like this, worthy of a fortune cookie, while on your high horse to boot! Bravo!
>These comments on Moore's work were stated here by others in threads about bowling or 911. IT IS A DOCUMENTARY for gods sake, if you are not agreeing with him? Fine, say so, but don't come up again with this blaming Moore for doing some nice cutting and pasting. I mean I guess instead of watching the movie you will now read some 800 page report on the matter right?
>The whole difference with Moore and state propaganda is that Moore hopes to change something while state propaganda tries to keep people quiet.
So 90% of people don't have problems with being lied to by the Bush government but they start jumping when Moore makes a movie. Again fine with me, but than just be honest and say that you don't like the conclusions he makes in his movies.
pps. I really like your comment on 'the 800 page report'. That is such an astute (asstoot?) observation on someone you don't even know. But you are absolutely correct. Reading is like, so hard. Easier to just watch the movie. Oh I mean the documentary.