"Palme D'Or" for Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11&

[kandrathe]

Commentary on "Bowling for Columbine" -- which highlights what I find offensive about Moore. He has a scorched earth tactic in taking advantage of people's good nature.

First of all, I want to say I have a love- hate feeling for Michael Moore. I think he means well and he certainly has a big heart which is a huge credit to him (at least I think he does). But I have to admit, I think he over-does it sometimes. A perfect example is the final scene---possible spoilers. Whether you oppose Charlton Heston's beliefs or not( Heston is not a bad guy, we all know that), Moore needs to understand he has rights( and a reputation too). Heston was extremely kind to Moore by allowing him into his own home and give him his time, which is a credit to Heston. I feel Moore only took advantage of the situation by "badgering" him to succumb to his questions. He tried to make Heston look bad in his own home. Then he used that pitiful "Heston doesn't care" angle as he slowly left Moore and walked away. This effect didn't work on me- all I thought about was "leave this guy alone". Hey Moore, I'm fed up with all the violence too and I'm sick to my stomach over that little girl. But show a little dignity and respect to people that are only being kind to you. Anyone else feel this way?  Thanks.

Was Heston, or Dick Clark, or the K-mart employee responsible for the little girls death? Or, was it a crack dealing uncle who left his loaded weapons laying around?

[SwissMercenary]

I would not say that an NRA rally held in a town, right after a school shooting is the nicest thing to do, myself.

[TaMeOlta]

What the hell is going on with ovations? To what end and purpose lay in a crowd of people standing and clapping for time longer than it takes to bake two batches of cookies!? That's nuts.

:lol: I just look at that from my own twisted perspective ; in the end , all he got a bad case of the claps :lol:

[Nystul]

What the hell is going on with ovations? To what end and purpose lay in a crowd of people standing and clapping for time longer than it takes to bake two batches of cookies!? That's nuts.

These are filmmakers. They think they know how to stage a scene and make it look good, but sometimes they go a little bit overboard...

[Jester]

"Haven't you noticed that it is usually Canadians who sight (sic) him as a source and come to his defense?"

Yes. But haven't you noticed that it is we, your closest english-speaking neighbours, who might be most inclined to follow US politics in detail? That, and he is widely praised and apparently widely agreed with in Europe and Australia, although I'm unaware of how he does in the non-english speaking world. In England, his books regularly top bestseller lists. In France, they've gone as far as to put "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine" on their curriculum. This is not just restricted to Canada.

From dictionary.com:

ster·e·o·type
n.
1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.
2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.
3. Printing. A metal printing plate cast from a matrix molded from a raised printing surface, such as type.

Presumably, we're either talking about no. 1 or no. 2, or some combination of them.

So, let's see. Conventional? I've heard a lot of criticisms of Mike Moore, but conventional would be stretching the truth more than a little. Quite the opposite (radical, fringe, out to lunch) tends to be the criticism. Formulaic? To what formula, or whose? I don't recall hearing Mike's hypothesis about violence abroad reflecting violence at home before. If I have, I certainly haven't heard it often enough to constitute a "formula". There are plenty of formulaic notions on this topic, such as "guns cause violence", or "guns don't kill people". Bowling for Columbine certainly rejects the first one, citing Canada as a nation with plenty of guns, but no gun violence. Other formulae, such as "our history makes us need guns" and so forth are also rejected.

Oversimplified conception, opinion, or image? Not really. Simpler than the most detailed examinations of the issues, of course, but easily beyond par for the course. But, of course, all opinions one disagrees with are "oversimplified". That's probably part of why we disagree with them. Mike goes out of his way to track down cases which defy conventional notions of why America is a gun-toting nation, and why gun crime is so much higher than elsewhere, even places with high gun ownership and "gun culture". His opinion, again, is not that "guns are bad", but that this is both a cause and a symptom of other notions arising in the USA, notably an overly aggressive foreign policy dating back to the end of WWII. One can disagree with the notion, and I'm sure you do, but it's not a stereotype.

So no, "stereotype" means exactly what I thought it meant. It doesn't mean "an opinion I disagree with", or "an opinion put out by someone I don't like". If Mike had made a movie that said everything gun control advocates have said for decades, and only that, he would be guilty of stereotyping. He didn't. Agree with it or not, he examined plenty of existing stereotypes, and pretty much rejected them all, putting forth instead his own idea on the causes of gun violence. I can't see how this movie qualifies as "one big stereotype". Maybe you could give an example of it?

Jester

Edit: One question. If you haven't seen Roger and Me, and Mike has only three movies to his name so far (Roger and Me, The Big One, Bowling for Columbine), how many movies of his have you seen? You refer to it in the plural, so I can only presume you've seen The Big One. Is this the case? Or is "Bowling" the only movie of his you've seen? Perhaps you're more familiar with TV Nation, or The Awful Truth (not movies, but I suppose they still count for something)?

[Jester]

"This is the type of film that is so overtly biased that it only preaches to his own troop of politicized sycophants. I'm in that middle area that refuses to be swayed by either extreme."

If this is the case, then Mike Moore has the largest "troop of politicized sycophants" in the world, spanning more than a hundred million people from the English speaking world and beyond.

Perhaps this is something more than a "troop", leaving aside any issues with "sycophants"?

Jester

[[wcip]Angel]

What the hell is going on with ovations? To what end and purpose lay in a crowd of people standing and clapping for time longer than it takes to bake two batches of cookies!? That's nuts.

*coughs*crowd mentality*cough*

It worked for the nazis. Now it's doing its job for the other side of the political spectrum :)

But you're right, I like cookies too... :blink: No, what I meant to say was:

You're right, I can't either fathom how people can stand up and down clapping their hands together of their own free will. After about 28 seconds, I'd gone "F*ck this"* and sat down.

15 minutes? I don't get it? I wouldn't applaud anyone for more than a minute; at the very most. (With the obvious Whedonesque exception where my hand would be hemoraging before I'd pass out.)
:P

[kandrathe]

I would draw a distinction between viewers, fans, and true believers.

I liked "Roger and Me" even though he was rude, and I can respect what he was trying to do with "Bowling for Columbine". There are any number of popular opinionated book writer types out there, like Al Franken, or Ann Coulter. To me, Moore is just like them, only he does it with film.

[Jester]

Like Al Franken, probably. That's fair. Ann Coulter regularly calls for violence and legal action against "traitors", by which she explicitly means liberals. Not the same category, sorry. Mike may be radical, but he's never advocated anything even close to that level. Taking the government from conservative extremists through democratic means is rather different than "physical intimidation" to prevent "outright treason".

"I would draw a distinction between viewers, fans, and true believers."

So would I. But you didn't. The movies clearly have enormous appeal. They are not merely being touted and watched by some tiny, sycophantic segment of the population. Nor are they only being appreciated by that segment. The same goes for his enormously well-selling books. You were trying to imply some kind of cult following, whereas he has clearly hit the mainstream in force. Perfectly ordinary, reasonable people see value in his movies, even if they don't agree with his main point. So, with that being the case, what's the value of your statement? I can't see any, except to artificially imply a marginalization which doesn't actually exist, something easily demonstrated by a cursory look at the crowds his movies draw. Call him wrong, fine, but this is not some sycophantic commie writing pamphlets for the already converted.

Jester

[kandrathe]

So, with that being the case, what's the value of your statement? I can't see any, except to artificially imply a marginalization which doesn't actually exist, something easily demonstrated by a cursory look at the crowds his movies draw. Call him wrong, fine, but this is not some sycophantic commie writing pamphlets for the already converted.

I did not say commie. Just like the other examples I gave of popular tellers of "truth" (as they see it), I think Moore has his cult as you put it. To me, he is just another piper playing the same tune to the same audience. I am one of those who doubts that anyone comes out the theatre saying "Gosh, I was all wrong". Those partial to his beliefs are still believers. Those who are diametrically opposed most likely don't go. The ones in the middle, will probably stay in the middle not knowing which extremes are better at spinning the truth.

I would hesitate to even call what he does Documentary. In both Bowling for Columbine, and Roger and Me, he has cobbled together different footage to make the result appear more than it was, and more sensational, or outrageous. I would call that lying with a camera, and no better than those liberals who have been fired for contriving the news. I will have to wait and see how "accurate" this latest venture is. My point about the "Heston Interview" was to ask, how can you trust a "truth" teller who is willing to deceive to get his footage?

From IMDB: MICHAEL MOORE IS A FRAUD - THE ULTIMATE LIST (LAST UPDATED 01-28-04)

I'm just glad when the 15 minutes of fame for rude obnoxious people like Moore are over, whatever their political persuasion. I think given enough time, he will burn enough bridges, and then just curl up with his millions in his fortress in Manhattan.

Is it too much to ask for reasonable people to engage in reasonable debate without the back-stabbing, and vitriol? I'm sorry, you can't get rich doing that.

Edit: Added link.

[Rhydderch Hael]

Indeed.

Clapper #1: "My hands are bleeding! Can we stop now?"

Clapper #2: "We are conveying our approval of this fine expression of free speech and acknowledging the sanctity of individual human thought. So shut up and do what everyone else is doing until we're told to stop clapping by the show's producers."

[Griselda]

To what end and purpose lay in a crowd of people standing and clapping for time longer than it takes to bake two batches of cookies!?

Well, I'm pretty sure none of those people would have been baking cookies had they not been standing around clapping. At least, I'm guessing that the cookie baking facilities in the audience were minimal.

I suspect that the end and purpose of this particular crowd will continue to be unfathomable by people who put Cookies First! Heck, I could be halfway done with baking a batch in the time it's taken me to type out this post! :lol:

[kandrathe]

The Truth about Bowling For Columbine

Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.


Fact: At Denver, the NRA cancelled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law governing nonprofits required that it be held. [No way to change location, since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting.] As a newspaper reported:

In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled.

All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center.

Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting.

The NRA convention April 30-May 2 was expected to draw 22,000 members and give the city a $17.9 million economic boost.

"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.

[eppie]

The Truth about Bowling For Columbine

Fact: The Denver event was not a demonstration relating to Columbine, but an annual meeting (see links below), whose place and date had been fixed years in advance.


Fact: At Denver, the NRA cancelled all events (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies) save the annual members' voting meeting -- that could not be cancelled because the state law governing nonprofits required that it be held. [No way to change location, since under NY law you have to give 10 days' advance notice of that to the members, there were upwards of 4,000,000 members -- and Columbine happened 11 days before the scheduled meeting.] As a newspaper reported:

In a letter to NRA members Wednesday, President Charlton Heston and the group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, said all seminars, workshops, luncheons, exhibits by gun makers and other vendors, and festivities are canceled.

All that's left is a members' reception with Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and the annual meeting, set for 10 a.m. May 1 in the Colorado Convention Center.

Under its bylaws and New York state law, the NRA must hold an annual meeting.

The NRA convention April 30-May 2 was expected to draw 22,000 members and give the city a $17.9 million economic boost.

"But the tragedy in Littleton last Tuesday calls upon us to take steps, along with dozens of other planned public events, to modify our schedule to show our profound sympathy and respect for the families and communities in the Denver area in their time of great loss," Heston and LaPierre wrote.

Meaning??? Guns are good and Moore is a liar??

Come on... you know the laws in the US. If Moore was telling lies in his movies, or shows things that hurt people in an unjust way, he would allready be serving a life sentence.

He "nices up" things a bit but he, it is a movie, and people must enjoy to watch it.

[Nystul]

Meaning??? Guns are good and Moore is a liar??

Are you using threaded view? If so, the meaning is pretty clear. One of our fellow lurkers had some misconceptions about the NRA, apparently gained as a result of watching a misleading portion of this "documentary", and Kandrathe was nice enough to provide a link with some relevant facts about the issue.

As for guns being good and Moore being a liar, that sums up my opinions on the matter pretty well! :P

Come on... you know the laws in the US. If Moore was telling lies in his movies, or shows things that hurt people in an unjust way, he would allready be serving a life sentence.

Perhaps you know very little about U.S. laws. You do seem to have some deep resentment towards our country though, and I'm not quite sure where it's all coming from.

He "nices up" things a bit but he, it is a movie, and people must enjoy to watch it.


I seem to recall someone here at LL starting a thread a few months back about propaganda in the U.S. media and how disconcerting it was. I don't recall if that was you or someone else. Well anyways, this is what Moore is. He is a U.S. media propaganda machine. For the most part he is not a big deal, because most Americans recognize him as being on the fringe left wing of American politics and take everything he writes with a grain of salt. But it is clear that he has passed misleading materials as facts to prove his points, and plenty of people have bought into it. One cannot just pass this off as pure entertainment. It's no coincidence that his new movie is popping up during the summer of a presidential election year. He is trying to make a serious political impact here. And that's fine with me, as long as he isn't providing false or misleading information...

[eppie]

Come on... you know the laws in the US. If Moore was telling lies in his movies, or shows things that hurt people in an unjust way, he would allready be serving a life sentence.

Perhaps you know very little about U.S. laws. You do seem to have some deep resentment towards our country though, and I'm not quite sure where it's all coming from.

If you are following my posts you also must have seen several of them where I state that I DO NOT (sorry for using capitals here but I want to make this clear once and for all) resent the US, quite the opposite actually.

I see you use the GW Bush way of reasoning. "if you don't like me, you must hate the US, and you are not a patriot" . "Probably you are even a communist and I will make sure nobody is allowed anymore to play your songs on the radio".

I cannot say I know a lot about US laws ( I do not know anything about laws in general) but I don't think you should rub that in too much. Apparantly even GWBush must now it is not allowed to torture prisoners. Difference between me and GW is that he is president of the US, and I'm just a lurker. So if you want to talk about laws maybe you should consider sending him an email. :D


If I (or another Lurker) wants to criticize a particular thing, please do not see this as an attack on your beloved country.

By the way I did not see any of Moore movies yet (also because as you noticed correctly I probably share a lot of his opinions).

I seem to recall someone here at LL starting a thread a few months back about propaganda in the U.S. media and how disconcerting it was. I don't recall if that was you or someone else. Well anyways, this is what Moore is. He is a U.S. media propaganda machine. For the most part he is not a big deal, because most Americans recognize him as being on the fringe left wing of American politics and take everything he writes with a grain of salt. But it is clear that he has passed misleading materials as facts to prove his points, and plenty of people have bought into it. One cannot just pass this off as pure entertainment. It's no coincidence that his new movie is popping up during the summer of a presidential election year. He is trying to make a serious political impact here. And that's fine with me, as long as he isn't providing false or misleading information...

I don't remember that (I don't think I started it though). Anyway he is just a guy making movies, and he has his views and likes to show them to the people. This is not comparable with state propaganda (like e.g. in Italy (extreme), the US and other countries) which you must agree with me is a very bad thing.

Are you using threaded view?

are there other views?? :D

eppie.

[kandrathe]

The problem is that what Moore makes are "Mockumentaries", like "This Is Spinal Tap". So his twisting the truth, is not really lying, just creative license to get some knowing nods, or guffaws from the audience. It is liberal humor, but many mistake it for a serious documentary.

Moore winning the Palme D'Or for best documentary is unfortunate and unfair for those who make real documentaries. His films should be competing in the satire/comedy area.

Meaning??? Guns are good and Moore is a liar??

I think guns are an inanimate tool used for killing or intimidation. Sometimes bad people use these tools for evil purposes. You can be the judge as to whether Moore is a liar. I think he makes liberal focused films to satisfy some political grudge he has, and to make lots and lots of money. He is no more lying, than "Airplane" the movie, is lying about the nature of airports or flying on a plane. What is wrong is that people are confused into believing the contents of his movies reflect reality.

Come on... you know the laws in the US. If Moore was telling lies in his movies, or shows things that hurt people in an unjust way, he would allready be serving a life sentence.

I think the only film maker who might have jail time coming is Roman Polanski, if he ever sets foot in the US again. No life sentences pending as far as I can tell.

[Jester]

"The problem is that what Moore makes are "Mockumentaries", like "This Is Spinal Tap"."

No, what Mike makes are documentaries with a comic edge and political slant. A mockumentary (at least if Spinal Tap is a model) is based on a fictional concept, and has scripted content. Nothing Mike has done is either of those things. While they're not exactly national geographic, they aren't (deliberate, to be cynical) parodies of the documentary genre.

Jester

Edit: Except, of course, for Canadian Bacon, which would fit into the previously mentioned "Liberal Comedy" genre. However, since that movie in no way resembles his other, more famous movies, I don't include it in the list.

[TaiDaishar]

Thing is, documentries have no room for comedy/satire and thus the mockumentries were born.

[kandrathe]

I think there is our difference of opinion. You believe that what Moore offers the public is fact, while I belive it is film so edited and distorted as to make it fiction. He in fact claims that all his films are the representation of truth, because there are not actors (other than Moore) and no sets. He dups real people into interviews, or takes real footage and then edits it into the story he wants to tell. Not reality. So, a low budget mockumentary.

Other people think it is a Mockumentary too.

Michael Moore, smear specialist-- It was awarded the status of top news, the front page of The New York Times. Disney was telling its Miramax subsidiary that it could not distribute radical, Bush-loathing Michael Moore's new "mockumentary," titled "Fahrenheit 9-11." This report, like virtually all the news accounts surrounding Moore's upcoming film, seem to glide right around Moore's very obvious hatred of conservatives and his very checkered history of cinematic fact-mangling.

The first act of fact-mangling on this film may be this story of Disney censorship. In paragraph six of the Times story, we were given a Disney spokesman declaring they "advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax."

Brent Bozell -- townhall.com Yes. Before you flay me, he is a conservative so you can't believe a word he says, right?

http://www.chronwatch.com

Or, Crockumentary -- I guess Jean Luc Godard is not a fan.

Google Answers -- Are Moore's facts to be trusted