| Total Comments 8 | Start A New Comment |
| Post Info | Comment |
| Posted By: Rod Posted On: Jun 25, 2007 Views: 793 | support for PaulT Well-written comments, Paul. As for Ford, I'd find your comments more credible if you had a basic understanding of English spelling. |
| Posted By: PaulT Posted On: Jun 25, 2007 Views: 829 | Conversation starter I've enjoyed Moore's documentaries so far, and I do happen to share few of the world views he displays. However, for me the point is this - who cares if the films are one-sided, or even totally accurate? The point of these movies for me isn't that you can take each movie as gospel (you can't), but it's that he wears his heart on his sleeve and that people *talk* about the movies. Regardless of how many people see the movie, people are talking about it. Hopefully that will lead to real discussion about the issue at hand, which wasn't being publically discussed until Moore came along. As for Sicko, the same rules apply as with every Moore movie. Whether you agree with some of the specifics (having grown up in the UK, I can assure you that the NHS isn't perfect by a long stretch despite the glowing examples he gives in the doc), the movie forces you to consider the overall theme. In Bowling, that was the issue of guns (why so many school shootings in the US and so few in other countries with gun traditions?). In F9/11, the issue of whether we were right to go into Iraq, and whether we were given the real reasons for doing so. In this case, the theme is that the US healthcare system is broken, controlled by corporate rather than public interests, and that no matter the objections from some parties, there are workable alternatives that don't leave people bankrupt or homeless if their insurance rejects a claim. Agree with Moore's evidence and methods or not, the movie forces people to discuss the issue. |
| Posted By: Ford Posted On: Jun 23, 2007 Views: 1005 | Not a fan either Fact check any of Moore's movies and see what you get...He's manipulative in a way that may be legal, but ethical? I'm over it. He had me with Bowling until I did some fact checking, and I realized that I'd been duped. Farenheit 9/11 one of the most influential movies of all time? Yes, it's influenced me to watch all documentaries with a more discerning and critical eye so that when Al Gore shows tidal predictions in the future with coastal cities underwater (a hyperbole of mythic proportions) I can realize "DING "DING"-I'm being manipulated! Does the end justify the means? Is there anything wrong with lying (or using hyper-hyperbole) in a documentary to convey truth? At what point does this kind of thinking degenerate into a one-sided propaganda piece instead of an honest analysis of the way things are? Sure Moore may be no Riefenstahl, but should we applaud his methods when they teeter towards her's even though his goal may seem good on the face of it? |
| Posted By: etslee Posted On: Jun 22, 2007 Views: 445 | Not a fan either Moore doesn't seem to realize that if you have the facts on your side, you don't need to resort to manipulation and cheap shots. To me, he's on par with Fox News, & totally useless to me. |
| Posted By: Rod Posted On: Jun 22, 2007 Views: 426 | regarding fact-checking I agree that Moore's passion is unquestionable and he does manipulate the viewers, tug on heartstrings, and use humour and ridicule to make his point - all effectively. At least he doesn't hide his feelings, which may allow for a more objective viewing of his films than so-called objective documentaries that have a point of view (they all do, necessarily) but would have the viewer think they don't. Also, as Moore himself would say, if his facts aren't defensible, then why hasn't he ever been sued in the famously litigious U.S.? And how would he be able to continue to get E&O insurance that allow the release of the films if they were not accurate, or at least defensible. |
| Posted By: Samuel S. Posted On: Jun 22, 2007 Views: 307 | Not a Moore fan To this date I really haven't enjoyed a single Michael Moore film, even though I consider myself at least moderately liberal. Considering Moore has a clear agenda in every single one of his movies, with each documentary he makes his mission is to persuade as opposed to inform, which means he needs to sway you a bit to have been successful. But in every Moore film he manages to turn me off from his point of view instead of solidify me in his position. If anything, Fahrenheit 9/11 made me more fond of the Bush administration, and Roger and Me almost made me identify more with the executives at GM than with the out-of-work citizens of Flint. |
| Posted By: Matt Posted On: Jun 22, 2007 Views: 378 | Fahrenheit 9/11 Fahrenheit 9/11 will go down as one of the best and most influential movies ever made. |
| Posted By: tonguecutsparrow Posted On: Jun 22, 2007 Views: 380 | ill communication Moore is a decent documentarian. He's a much better storyteller than fact-checker. While his methods are questionable, what is not questionable is his passion in his beliefs indeed. While more forgiving than the religious right, Moore is not the liberal he exudes that he is. He may be a democrat, but he is no liberal. There are moments in his films where, as an audience member, I felt embarrassed for the people he was verbally bludgeoning. Personally, Moore should take a few cues from the likes of John Stewart and his ilk; they pursue a much more honest grey area and can still make us laugh. |