Micheal Moore Hates America

Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

Barry_s, believe me when I say that I am not a starving artist (not that there’s anything wrong with that), I’m quite coin operated and was lucky enough to be able to retire by the time I was 45 (which is why I have so much time to post on this site.) Nevertheless, one of the implicit messages in all of Mr. Moore’s movies is about the negative effect corporations have on our society, and in this case our political system.

My argument is that he is more part of the problem than he is the solution, not by my definition, but his own. It is hypocritical for him to make the accusations that he does against “rich” people and corporations and yet get his panties in a bunch when Disney refuses to distribute his film and he makes $60 million. Does that make him rich? And I wonder how much of that $60M he contributed to the cause he supports?

Might a better approach to a movie like this be to acknowledge the idealism of his cause, but more realistically face reality? I’m not even saying that he needed to remain objective, he is free to express any message he likes, however, once he loses his objectivity then he has an obligation to tell the viewer that this is fiction. If he does not than I think, he should be held accountable for the statements that he makes. I do not know how to do that, maybe one way would be to produce a movie “Michael Moore Hates America” and see if he can take it as good as he gave it, or I guess the people who he slanders can take him to court. But he can’t have it both ways, he can’t stand up in a crowded theater and yell “fire” then after everyone has exited say that he was just kidding, the first amendment only goes so far.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

Well, Moore himself had this to say about the money he made from "Roger & Me," about $3M. A million went to tax, a million went to charity, the rest just . . . kind of disappeared. His words.

I have to go with Barry S . . . I'm far too honest of an historian to approach even the hint of calling someone a "Nazi" unless there's ample reason to do so. Comparing Moore to Riefenstahl isn't overtly calling him a Nazi, but it does smack of the innuendo. Riefenstahl was a cinematic whore whose most famous tricks were some of the most ghastly monsters in history. Moore believes in what he's doing, however dishonest and bullyish we know it to be. He may employ some of the same techniques, but I'll at least give him the credit that he doesn't serve the same devil.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

I really do not equate the politics of Riefsenstahl with Moore, although both were leftist (although equated with the right because Hitler was an ultra-pragmatist-madman, National Socialism has more in common with the ideals of the left), their goals were clearly different. Moore is supportive of government change, Riefsenstahl interested in building up the government. But the techniques they use are the same.

In other words, Massai Warriors, Dead Birds, and Rivers of Grass are basically different works. But each uses the same tactics to develop their story.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

I dunno . . . I see Moore as being more "Harcopy" writ large (in every sense -- bigger budget, bigger screen, bigger issues, deeper deceit).
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

One thing: I try to separate the ethics of Moore and Riefsenstahl from their techniques. I use both to teach propaganda techniques to students, both to understand how it is done and to see masters of the technique. The ethics of what they do is part of rhetoric and ethics class.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=60#61 date=07/08/04 at 16:11:32]I have to go with Barry S . . . I'm far too honest of an historian to approach even the hint of calling someone a "Nazi" unless there's ample reason to do so.  Comparing Moore to Riefenstahl isn't overtly calling him a Nazi, but it does smack of the innuendo.  Riefenstahl was a cinematic whore whose most famous tricks were some of the most ghastly monsters in history.  Moore believes in what he's doing, however dishonest and bullyish we know it to be.  He may employ some of the same techniques, but I'll at least give him the credit that he doesn't serve the same devil.[/quote]
I have to respectfully disagree. I think the comparison of Moore’s work to Riefenstahl’s is a valid one. Slapdragon’s explanation pretty much hit the nail on the head as to my reasons why, so I won’t rehash the point. I don’t think anyone (at least on this board) would even remotely associate Moore, as a NAZI, but the similarities in the use of propaganda, to me at least, are very striking.

Also, calling Riefenstahl a cinematic whore is IMO not entirely fair. Sure in hindsight we can look back with disgust at the atrocities committed by the NAZI party, however, the movie “Triumph of the Will” was filmed in 1934 and at a time when very few could have foreseen the horrors that were to come. From the little I know of her, Riefenstahl seemed very passionate about her work and of Hitler, but truth be told the majority of Germans felt the same way.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=ChuckS link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=60#60 date=07/08/04 at 15:43:11]Barry_s, believe me when I say that I am not a starving artist (not that there’s anything wrong with that), I’m quite coin operated and was lucky enough to be able to retire by the time I was 45 (which is why I have so much time to post on this site.) [/quote]

Can I borrow some money...
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=Ranger link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=60#65 date=07/08/04 at 17:11:05]
Also, calling Riefenstahl a cinematic whore is IMO not entirely fair.  Sure in hindsight we can look back with disgust at the atrocities committed by the NAZI party, however, the movie “Triumph of the Will” was filmed in 1934 and at a time when very few could have foreseen the horrors that were to come.  From the little I know of her, Riefenstahl seemed very passionate about her work and of Hitler, but truth be told the majority of Germans felt the same way.[/quote]

No, I can't buy into that.  Anyone in Germany who didn't know what the Nazis (and why do you guys write it in all caps?  It's an abbreviation, but it's not an acronym) were by 1934 just weren't paying attention, either willfully or negligently.  The first concentration camps were already in place by then.  I don't recall the *exact* timing of the film, but there had already been a purge or two by 1934.  And they had been fighting and spilling blood in the streets for a decade, plain enough for anyone to see.

And really, one needs only read "Mein Kampf."

I will grant that it was a nebulous and confusing time, and I don't envy the Germans of the day.  But I have a hard time *excusing* them, especially considering that there was no popular uprising against Hitler, even after the evils had become brutally obvious.  And those who did plot against him did so not because of the evil but because they thought he was leading Germany to defeat and ruin.

Life sucked in the 20s for Germans, but there are some things which are just plain wrong, no matter what, and most people instinctively know what they are.

But wow . . . there's a stray from the topic.  I'll happily accept anyone's response as the last word, 'coz I don't wanna go too far down that road.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

I'm not sure that believing in what you do is a good excuse for deliberately missleading people. I tried to tell the IRS that a little over $1M I had just kinda dissapeared - they didn'y buy it.

Whooo - you ever see that commercial with the happy cows from California in an earthquake? Well we're having another one - I'm guessing a 3.4, third one in two days. Cool!
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=ChuckS link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=60#68 date=07/08/04 at 17:26:40]I'm not sure that believing in what you do is a good excuse for deliberately missleading people.  [/quote]

Which is a fundamental question -- if you're right, why do you have to make things up?

I didn't say that his believing in what he did excused anything; it was only to say that it was a different motivation.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=60#69 date=07/08/04 at 17:32:25]

Which is a fundamental question -- if you're right, why do you have to make things up?

I didn't say that his believing in what he did excused anything; it was only to say that it was a different motivation.

[/quote]

This is a major issue with Moore, and drives my dissapointment with his work. He could have, if he desired, have done a hard hitting peice on, for example, gun violence, without the rather well documented flubs, lies, and mistakes that were the result. He actually hurt his point by making much of the film up, and that is ashame because he had a point which was arguable and not one sided.

Same with F911. With all of the real data out there on Dubya, he went the easy route.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

I gotta second what David mentioned;

The people of Germany knew EXACTLY what was going on and did nothing.

Now, to be fair, there were German's who did not like what was going on and spoke out against these attrocities and in turn these people were arrested and/or executed. But...

The amount of people that spoke out were pretty few and far from what i can gather. I can't say they were neccesary fine about the whole thing but not doing anything about it is unforgivable is it not?

I am more than positive that one dare not speak out against the Nazi ( :D No CAPS :D ) party for fear of reparation. I have heard of members of the government resigning, military officers resigning and civilians alike but lest we forget that if Hitler had won the Air War against England they no doubt would have invaded (This was a pre-requesite to attacking from land) and the German people would have most likely would have gone along with this for the above reasons.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

I have to add:

When Germany invaded Poland in September of 1939 and the troops (Deaths Head division's) headed out on the sides of railway cars painted in big white letters was the phrase "We're off to Poland to thrash the Jews".

This is Sept of 1939. Mein Kampf was published in 1925/26 and sold almost 10 Million copies during Hitlers lifetime. We can't sit here for one second and think the German people were naive to what the Nazi party stood for.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=David Jimerson link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=60#67 date=07/08/04 at 17:24:59]

No, I can't buy into that.  Anyone in Germany who didn't know what the Nazis (and why do you guys write it in all caps?  It's an abbreviation, but it's not an acronym) were by 1934 just weren't paying attention, either willfully or negligently.  The first concentration camps were already in place by then.  I don't recall the *exact* timing of the film, but there had already been a purge or two by 1934.  And they had been fighting and spilling blood in the streets for a decade, plain enough for anyone to see.

And really, one needs only read "Mein Kampf."

I will grant that it was a nebulous and confusing time, and I don't envy the Germans of the day.  But I have a hard time *excusing* them, especially considering that there was no popular uprising against Hitler, even after the evils had become brutally obvious.  And those who did plot against him did so not because of the evil but because they thought he was leading Germany to defeat and ruin.

Life sucked in the 20s for Germans, but there are some things which are just plain wrong, no matter what, and most people instinctively know what they are.

But wow . . . there's a stray from the topic.  I'll happily accept anyone's response as the last word, 'coz I don't wanna go too far down that road.
[/quote]
I am aware that the word is an acronym. Sometimes I may vary it, but in this venue I didn’t know that it was going to be such a touchy subject.

Oh well …

No one is excusing the Germans for their role in allowing Hitler and the Nazi Party (no caps) into gaining power, however I think it’s too easy for us to now look back in time, point our finger and say “bad bad Germans”! I don’t think the “evils” of the party and the sins of the German people were as obvious as many here would like to believe. As a young lieutenant, 15 years ago, I lived in Bamberg, Germany and had many interesting and lively conversations with Germans, both old and young, into politics and Germany’s role in history during the 20th Century. Like many here, I too was extremely critical of Germany’s complicity into the events that ultimately unfolded. All of the Germans I have known have expressed a genuine regret and shame for what happened, but in 1934 those “evils” were not so clearly defined as they are today. Sure, overtly racist books such as “Mein Kampf” had been around for quite awhile, but sadly at the time many Europeans across the continent were anti-Semitic and such a book only reaffirmed existing stereotypes of the day. In context, this was no different from the attitudes expressed here in the US by many Southern whites towards their black neighbors. How many of us here can remember in our not too distant past of “Whites Only” signs at restaurants, water fountains, and lavatories? Additionally, the death camps (as we know them today) and the final solution were not carried out until much later. The first concentration camp, Dachau (which I visited) was established a year prior to the making of the Reifenstahl’s movie (May of 1933). It wouldn’t be until much later that the average German would realize its ultimate evil role and purpose. Again, and I cannot stress enough, that I am not making excuses for Germany’s complicity in the killing of millions of innocents, but I wanted to illustrate that in context to the time the “Triumph of the Will” was filmed, such foresight into the reality of the Nazi (no caps) Party was no yet fully apparent.

I hope we can discuss this rationally.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=60#72 date=07/08/04 at 17:57:03]I have to add:

When Germany invaded Poland in September of 1939 and the troops (Deaths Head division's) headed out on the sides of railway cars painted in big white letters was the phrase "We're off to Poland to thrash the Jews".

This is Sept of 1939.  Mein Kampf was published in 1925/26 and sold almost 10 Million copies during Hitlers lifetime.  We can't sit here for one second and think the German people were naive to what the Nazi party stood for.[/quote]
Yes, but the 3rd SS Panzer Division "Totenkopf" had some of the most fanatical and loyal soldiers of the Waffen SS and the Nazi Party.  It only stands to reason that they would be in lock-step with existing party ideology.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

See the strong connotations the mention of Riefenstahl brings up? It's disingenuous to pretend that making the comparison is nothing more than a comparison of documentary technique. You disagree with Moore, therefore the comparison is valid. I'm still not buying it. One was sponsored by the state, one is at odds with the state. One's imagery is utilitarian, the other carefully composed and edited. One includes the physical presence of the filmmaker, the other doesn't (which is a very significant substantive and stylistic development in documentary filmmaking) . Your valuation of Moore's ethics is a personal judgment--in other words you're free to lump anyone in with Leni if you care to.

"...once he loses his objectivity then he has an obligation to tell the viewer that this is fiction"

Chuck--there is no such thing as an objective filmmaker. Moore wears his views on his sleeve and he's right there in his films. How much more obvious do you want? It's a viewpoint and you might consider it extreme, but that still doesn't make it fiction.

"...he can’t stand up in a crowded theater and yell “fire” then after everyone has exited say that he was just kidding.."

I have no idea what this means and part off the problem is the fact it's an analogy. Analogy is the weakest form of argument--it doesn't require facts or logic and cannot be proven or disproven. I don't recommend it to allies or the opposition.

"...the first amendment only goes so far."

Oh, I think the first amendment goes *very* far and that's good thing. There's room under the tent for Moore and Al Franken and Fox-TV and Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy--and I'd like to keep it that way.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=Barry_S link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=75#75 date=07/08/04 at 20:17:41]See the strong connotations the mention of Riefenstahl brings up?  It's disingenuous to pretend that making the comparison is nothing more than a comparison of documentary technique.  
[/quote]
Strong connotations yes, but only when you analyze her work as synonymous with the Nazi (no caps) Party.  I'm not concerned about Leni the Nazi (no caps), but rather Leni the filmmaker.  It is in this context that her film should be analyzed and compared to Moore's work.  And I don’t say that because I disagree with Moore’s film, I say that because of the way information is conveyed on film to skew a certain viewpoint.  I feel Moore’s work is propaganda and it’s in that manner that I approach it.  Personally, I think its disingenuous to avoid talking about her movie solely because of its Nazi (no caps) Party affiliation.

[quote author=Barry_S link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=75#75 date=07/08/04 at 20:17:41]You disagree with Moore, therefore the comparison is valid.  I'm still not buying it.  One was sponsored by the state, one is at odds with the state.  
[/quote]
Whether it’s sponsored by the state or opposed to it is irrelevent to this discussion.  I’m trying to separate the Nazi (no caps) Party from the person.  Politics aside, what are both filmmakers intent?  Were they effective?  Was their filmmaking approach successful in reaching the masses?  And if so, why were they successful?
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

Ahh, propaganda. Unfortunately, it's very hard to define propaganda. At it's most basic definition, it's mass-communicated persuasion--beyond that things become less clear. Does it have to include a call to action or disinformation? If the desired result is noble is it still propaganda? If defining the word is hard--defining the actual product is even harder. If you want to use the broadest application of the definition then you've got to include Tide commercials, TV evangelism, and political speeches.

Once again, you're back to a pure value judgment. Maybe I should compare Rush Limbaugh to Joseph Goebbels. Not Goebbels, the Nazi, but Goebbels the propagandist. See, I get to define propaganda to suit my argument and associate Rush with a Nazi. Wheee, that was easy. Too easy, maybe? And a bit ridiculous?
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=Barry_S link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=75#77 date=07/08/04 at 21:42:39]Once again, you're back to a pure value judgment.  Maybe I should compare Rush Limbaugh to Joseph Goebbels.  Not Goebbels, the Nazi, but Goebbels the propagandist.  See, I get to define propaganda to suit my argument and associate Rush with a Nazi.  Wheee, that was easy.  Too easy, maybe?  And a bit ridiculous?
[/quote]

Not really.  As long as you steer clear of claiming Rush advocates the destruction of the Jews, then the methods and manner becomes and issue, and you may indeed be able to compare the techniques of Goebbels with the techniques of Rush.  

Remember, we can discuss Leni as a director, Leni as a designer, Leni as a communicator (which is how I am discussing her) without needed to discuss Leni as a NAZI tramp. Likewise, I can marvel at Moore's ability to create persuasive communications while taking it apart from the ethical and methodological discussion of what is documentary.

By the way, I would also like to thank you for keeping this discussion civil One can disagree, without needed to tear one's throat out.
 
Re: Micheal Moore Hates America

[quote author=Barry_S link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=75#77 date=07/08/04 at 21:42:39]Ahh, propaganda.  Unfortunately, it's very hard to define propaganda.  At it's most basic definition, it's mass-communicated persuasion--beyond that things become less clear.  Does it have to include a call to action or disinformation?  If the desired result is noble is it still propaganda?  If defining the word is hard--defining the actual product is even harder.  If you want to use the broadest application of the definition then you've got to include Tide commercials, TV evangelism, and political speeches.  
[/quote]
From Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary
Propaganda:
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person.
3: ideas, facts or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause

Well, that was easy enough to define.  Now, using the definition above, on to your questions:
1) Does it have to include a call to action or disinformation?  No.
2) If the desired result is noble is it still propaganda?  If it meets the criteria above, then yes.  During the American Revolution, the Patriots were excellent propogandists.  For example, the Boston Massacre in how it was portrayed was a form of propaganda.
3) If you want to use the broadest application of the definition then you've got to include Tide commercials, TV evangelism, and political speeches.Again, if it meets the criteria above, then absolutely.

[quote author=Barry_S link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=75#77 date=07/08/04 at 21:42:39]Once again, you're back to a pure value judgment.  Maybe I should compare Rush Limbaugh to Joseph Goebbels.  Not Goebbels, the Nazi, but Goebbels the propagandist.  
[/quote]
Yes, these are pure value judgments.  Most things in life are to one extent or another.  However, at some point one has to make a judgment call regardless of the subject.  There was a lyric to a rock song (I can’t remember the band) that went something like this:

"If you refuse to make a choice,
       then you have made a choice."

Should you compare Rush Limbaugh to Joseph Goebbels?  Sure, why not?  I would agree with the comparison.  I’ve listened to Rush in the past and he makes a lot of sense on many things, but at the end of the day he’s still an ideologue with a definable agenda that easily fits both criteria.

[quote author=Barry_S link=board=movies;num=1089249201;start=75#77 date=07/08/04 at 21:42:39]See, I get to define propaganda to suit my argument and associate Rush with a Nazi. Wheee, that was easy.  Too easy, maybe?  And a bit ridiculous?  
[/quote]
Sarcasm aside, it's actually the opposite of what you stated.  You don’t define propaganda to suit the argument, but rather does your argument meet its definition?  And from that point, then one can probe further into how Rush Limbaugh and the Nazi’s are similar or dissimilar.

Wheee, now wasn’t that easy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top