05-24-2004, 04:55 PM
Quote:Well, first, I might point out that while Mike is well thought of all over the world, Rush is a guilty pleasure more or less restricted to the American Right, and maybe a few castoff Thatcherites. That alone might say something about the equivalence of their messages.
I think it speaks more to western politics and America's differing politics from other English speaking nations, as well as the international community's view of America. Haven't you noticed that it is usually Canadians who sight him as a source and come to his defense? But those issues are for another thread.
Quote:Second, Mike's films deal in facts and events. No question, they're arranged for polemical effect, and no question that this is not the holy grail of impartiality. But they are not simply fabricated polemics (a "liberal comedy"; if you want to see something in that mould, there are enough examples in "TV Nation" and "The Awful Truth", although mixed with more substantial criticisms.)
Maybe you don't wach a lot of comics but when jokes come out about politics I've never heard them make up people or events. Usually they take real events and spin them. Who does this sound like? Moore is just better at it.
Quote:Third, this is not, nor were any of Mike's previous movies, about stereotypes. Roger and Me was specific; this town, this company, these people. He could point to them. That's not stereotyping. Bowling for Columbine was certainly about perceptions, but deliberately rejects blanket notions like "Gunz R Bad". I obviously haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet, but again, a single instance, a couple of families who you can point to without much difficulty. Maybe you don't like it, but it's not stereotyping.
I think you should go look up "stereotype". I haven't seen Roger and Me but Bowling for Columbine was one huge stereotype. That and his personal views almost totally obliterated the violence he was suppose to be "documenting".